Skip to main content

Full text of "A disputation on Holy Scripture : against the Papists, especially Bellarmine and Stapleton"

See other formats 










Ais RMIT uA 

















, pec 
tat Y! 
QT 24 
\ + ex 4 e 
" B 
: : NC » 
aS ‘ CM 
t Y ^ ^ : 
X ^ ‘ II ; 2 
o : t zi 
NN N 
gis 
i &* 
. A 
Í N 
" " Y . ^ ^ pavers cere eOkneg AA AW ROTA KW WARAAA RAH EM MARA AAR RA aAArKS WA A ! - 





LRA 00A CICER COE 2000JURSLJOR ESCAS 
TUN GUN PAPA ATI eae ae EAR IE nd ae 
OC ORDER CC 
DC OA Ca ai a a 
CPN UO LU 
A Cae aC aC aC ae 
AP A 





yan 
AA 
4 
at 









WAAR LARA AAAI 


SAN X NN SAKA tes 





MW WAV ANAM SUR 
: 








OOK 
Ara attke 
NOCERE K 

A al hy M, 
GOON 














^ MON COR 
et 
RON AN 








SNS 
AN 








UN ACT NC 
OR d I 
NN NN 











NONSE 
SADA RN 
EROR RON ee IN 








AAA 
AAAS 
PSOE. 





QOO 
PENNA 






MCA. ao M^ aii aa 
EG rv vv ) 
Ae Aes n A d de e a as 

OC 









KARA NN OO 
LAA 








A eo ae UM, de 
rake Now or toy vy 
WRABRABA MK OS ae M of 
” AA a OC a UR 








DU 
Cx 


b ^ v 
í | 























esis 
- 


325 
are 


























WHITAKER’S 


DISEUTATION. ON SCRIPTURE. 


The Parker Soctety. 


Qustituted AD. M.BECCE.NL. 




















Hor the Publication of the Works of the sathers 
and Garlp GGiriters of the Reformed 
Buglish Church, 


A 


Dish UTA TT ON 


ON 


EHOTY SORIPTIUTRE 


AGAINST THE PAPISTS, 


ESPECIALLY 


BELLARMINE AND STAPLETON. 


BY 


WILLIAM WHITAKER, D.D., 


REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, AND MASTER OF ST JOHN’S COLLEGE, 
IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE. 





TRANSLATED AND EDITED FOR 


Che Parker Sorctetyp, 


BY.THE 


REV. WILLIAM FITZGERALD, A.M. 


PREBENDARY OF DONOUGHMORE IN THE CATHEDRAL OF ST PATRICK, AND 
PROFESSOR OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN. 





CAMBRIDGE: 


PRINTED AT 


THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 


M.DCCC.XLIX. 





a 


ae 





CONTIN TS: 





PREFACE by the Editor : 
Epistle Dedicatory to Lord Burghley 
Preface to the Controversies 


Question the First of the First Controversy: Of the number of the 
Canonical Books of Scripture 


Question the Second: Of the Authentic Edition and Versions of the 
Scriptures ° : : : : ; 

Question the Third: Of the Authority of Scripture 

Question the Fourth: Of the Perspicuity of Scripture 

Question the Fifth: Of the Interpretation of Scripture 


Question the Sixth: Ofthe Perfection of Scripture, against Unwrit- 
ten Traditions . 


To the Reader 


Index =. : : : : : : ; 


275 
359 
402 


496 
705 
709 


PREFACE, 


Ir seemed desirable that this, the great work of one of 
the greatest of our early divines upon the cardinal point of 
difference between the churches of the Roman and the reformed 
communions, should be comprised in the collection of the Parker 
Society; not only on account of its intrinsic merits, but also for 
its historical value; as exhibiting the posture of defence assumed 
by our schools against that change of tactics in the management 
of this great controversy, which is to be dated from the insti- 
tution of the Society of Jesus. 

William Whitaker (or Whitacre) was born at Holme, in Lan- 
cashire, A.D. 1547, of a good family, nearly related, to Alexander 
Nowel, the celebrated dean of St Paul's. He was bred at Cam- | 
bridge, where he soon distinguished himself, and was in 1579 
appointed the Queen's Professor of Divinity. In 1586, through 
the influence of Burghley and Whitgift, and in spite of obstinate 
and powerful opposition, he was made Master of St John's Col- 
lege in that University ; soon after which appointment he took 
his degree of Doctor in Divinity. His delay in assuming the 
doctorate seems curious, and it was maliciously made the ground 
of a most unjust imputation of puritanism. How small was his 
sympathy with the disciplinarian party, appears from the manner 
in which he speaks of their great leader, Cartwright, in a letter 
preserved by Bancroft!: * Quem Cartwrightus nuper emisit libel- 
lum, ejus magnam partem perlegi. Ne vivam, si quid unquam 
viderim dissolutius ac pene puerilius. Verborum satis ille quidem 
lautam ae novam supellectilem habet, rerum omnino nullam, 
quantum ego quidem judicare possum. Deinde non modo per- 
verse de Principis in Rebus Sacris atque Ecclesiasticis auctoritate 
sentit; sed in papistarum etiam castra transfugit; a quibus ta- 
men videri vult odio capital dissidere. ^ Verum nec in hae causa 


1 Survey of Discipline, p. 379, Lond. 1593. 


x PREFACE. 


ferendus, sed aliis etiam in partibus tela a papistis mutuatur. 
Denique, ut de Ambrosio dixit Hieronymus, verbis ludit, sententiis 
dormitat, et plane indignus est qui a quopiam docto refutetur.” 

But though far removed from the disciplinarian tenets of 
the puritans, Whitaker undoubtedly agreed with them in their 
hostility to the Arminian opinions, which in his time began to 
prevail in the Church of England; as appears from the share 
taken by him in the prosecution of Baret, and the devising of 
the Lambeth articles. The history of such proceedings is foreign 
from my present purpose; but the reader will find a full detail 
of the circumstances connected with them in Strype’s Life of 
Whitgift, Book 1v., Chapters 14—-18. Shortly after the termi- 
nation of that memorable dispute, Whitaker died in 1595, in 
the forty-seventh year of his age. He was married, and had 
eight children, It was pleasantly said of him, that he gave the 
world a child and a book! every year. Of his children I have 
nothing to communicate, and his books will speak for themselves. 
They gained for him in his life-time a high character, not only 
with friends, but with enemies also. ‘I have," says the writer 
of his life, in Lupton's Protestant Divines?, “I have heard it 
confessed of English Papists themselves, which have been in Italy 
with Bellarmine himself, that he procured the true portraiture 
and effigies of this Whitaker to be brought to him, which he 
kept in his study. For he privately admired this man for his 
singular learning and ingenuity ; and being asked of some of his 
friends, Jesuits, why he would have the picture of that heretic 
in his presence? he would answer, Quod quamvis hereticus 
erat et adversarius, erat tamen doctus adversarius : that, “ al- 
though he was an heretie, and his adversary, yet he was a learned 
adversary,” p. 359. ‘He was,” says Gataker, “tall of stature and 
upright; of a grave aspect, with black hair and a ruddy com- 
plexion ; a solid judgment, a liberal mind, an affable disposition; a 

1 Librum et Liberum quotannis. See Fuller’s Life of Whitaker in the 
“Holy State.” 


2 History of the moderne Protestant Divines, &c., faithfully translated 
out of the Latin by D. L., London, 1637. 


PREFACE. xi 


mild, yet no remiss governor; a contemner of money; of a mode- 
rate diet, a life generally unblameable, and (that which added a 
lustre to all the rest) amidst all these endowments, and the respects 
of others (even the greatest) thereby deservedly procured, of a most 
meek and lowly spirit."  ** Who," asks Bishop Hall, “ever saw 
him without reverence? or heard him without wonder ?” 

I have only to add, that in the translation I have endeavoured 
to be as literal as would consist with a due regard to the English 
idiom. Had I considered myself at liberty to use more freedom, 
I should have made my task more easy to myself, and the work 
perhaps less tedious to the reader: for there is a prolixity in 
Whitaker’s style, which contrasts unfavourably with the com- 
pactness of his great antagonist, Bellarmine; though he trespasses 
far less upon the student’s patience than Stapleton, whose verbose 
rhetoric made him admired in his own day, and whose subtlety of 
logic cannot save him from neglect in ours. 


It is proper to apprise the reader, that, besides the Controversy 
translated in the present volume, the only one published in the 
Author’s life-time, three others are contained in the ponderous 
volumes of his works, all of which were published after his death 
by John Allenson, B.D., Fellow of St John’s College. The subjects 
of these are De Ecclesia, De Conciliis, and De Romano Pontifice. 
He encountered Dellarmine also on the other controversies in suc- 
cession, De ministris et presbyteris Ecclesie, De sanctis mortuis, 
De Ecclesia triunphante, De Sacramentis in genere, De Baptismo, 
and De Eucharistia.  ** Quas," adds his biographer, Obadiah 
Assheton, a Fellow of his College, ‘“ utinam licuisset per otium 
relegisse, et mandasse typis universas: id enim auditoribus erat in 
votis vel maxime; quorum cum summa admiratione et acclamatione 
singulas tractarat controversias. Ceterum studio respondendi Bel- 
larmino in omnibus controversiis religionis provectus, optimum 
censuit has elucubratas disputationes apud se reponere; ratus (quod 
postea non evenit) aptius fore tempus eas per otium evulgandi. 
Sed Deo immortali, eujus consilia sunt abyssus inscrutabilis, aliter 
visum est." 


xil PREFACE. 


The following is the list of his works: 

1. Responsio ad decem rationes Edm. Campiani. 8vo. Lond. 
1581. 

2. Responsionis ad decem rationes Edm. Campiani Defensio. 
8vo. Lond. 1583. 

3. Refutatio Nie. Sanderi, quod Papa non sit Antichristus. 
8vo. Lond. 1583. 

4. Answer to W. Rainold's Reprehensions, &c. 8vo. Camb. 
1585. 

5. Disputatio de Sacra Scriptura contra hujus temporis Pa- 
pistas. 4to. Cantab. 1588. 

6. Pro authoritate atque avromiotia S. Scripture Duplicatio 
contra T. Stapletonum. Libri 3. Cantab. 1594. 

7. Prelectiones de Ecclesia, &c., edited after his death by 
J. Allenson. 4to. Cantab. 1599. 

8. Prelectiones de Conciliis. 8vo. Cantab. 1600. 

9. Concio in 1 Thess. v. 12. 4to. Cantab. 1599. 

10. In Controversiam de R. Pontifice, distributam in ques- 
tiones viii, adversus Pontificios, imprimis R. Bellarminum, przlec- 
tiones.  8vyo. Hanov. 1608. 

11. De Sacramentis. Francof. 1624. 4to. 


A complete collection of his works in Latin was printed in two 
vols. folio, at Geneva, 1610. 

Besides the above, Whitaker published in 1569 a Greek trans- 
lation of the Common Prayer; in 1573, of Nowel’s larger, and in 
1575, of the smaller Catechism. 





A 


DISPUTATION 


ON 


ILOTLY SCRIPIUTRI. 


[ WHITAKER. | 


[Title-page of the original work, 1610.] 


DISPVTATIO 
pru SACRA SCRIE LY hex. 


CONTRA HVIVS TEMPORIS 
PAPISTAS INPRIMES 


RoBERTVM BELLARMINVM I[ESvVITAM, 


Pontificium in Collegio Romano, & Tuomam 
SraPLETONVM, Regium in Schola Dua- 
cena Controuersiarum 
Professorem : 


Questionibus proposita & tractata à GvitieLmo VVurraKero Theologie 
Doctore ac Profeffore Regio, & Collegij D. Ioannis in Canta- 
brigiensi Academia Magistro. 


Basrrivs in Epistola ad Eustathium medicum. 


e , ~ T ^ 
Hl Ocomvevo ros niv Gago o ypedrn' koi map’ ois àv evpeÜr cà doypata 


* T " , à LEE Y / , , ^ , e ^ 
cvveóa Tots Ücioic Aoyols, evi TOVTOIS nie TavtTws THS aAnÜcías g Wipos. 


EPISTLE DEDICATORY, 





TO THE MOST NOBLE AND PRUDENT, kj 


WILLIAM CECIL, KNIGHT, 


BARON BURGHLEY, HIGH TREASURER OF ENGLAND, AND 
CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE. 





TuerE have been many heretofore, illustrious Cecil, who 
have defended the papal interest and sovereignty with the utmost 
exertion, the keenest zeal, and no mean. or vulgar erudition. But 
they who have played their part with most address, and far out- 
stripped almost all others of their own side, are those men who 
now, for some years back, have been engaged most earnestly in 
this cause; a fresh supply of monks, subtle theologians, vehement 
and formidable controvertists; whom that strange—and, in former 
times, unheard of—Society of Jesus hath brought forth, for the 
calamity of the church and the christian religion. For when, 
" after that black, deadly, baneful, and tedious night of popish 
superstition and antichristianism, the clear and cheerful lustre 
of the gospel had illuminated with its rays some portions of 
the christian world, attracting, and by its incredible charms at the 
same time moving all, to gaze on, admire, and cleave to it; on 
a sudden, these men sprang up to obscure with pestilential vapours, 
and ravish, if possible, from our view, this light, so hateful to 
themselves, so hostile and prejudicial to their interests. So indeed 
had John, that holy disciple of Christ, predicted in the Apocalypse, 
that a star, which had fallen from heaven, and received the key 
of the infernal pit, should remove the covering of the abyss, 
and cause a mighty smoke to issue forth, like the smoke of a 
great furnace, shedding darkness over the sun and heaven. This 


1—2 


4 EPISTLE DEDICATORY. 


pit, from the time that it was first opened, hath not ceased to 
exhale perpetual smoke to blind the eyes of men; and, as the 
same prophet had foretold, hath sent forth innumerable locusts 
upon the earth, like scorpions, who have wounded with their 
deadly stings all men upon whose foreheads the seal of God was 
not impressed. The event itself, the best interpreter of prophe- 
cies, has illustrated the obscurity of the prediction. For who can 
doubt the meaning of the star, the pit, the smoke, the locusts ; 
who considers the state of the papal power, in which they are 
all so pourtrayed to the very life, as to be most readily dis- 
cerned by any one, who can compare together the past and pre- 
sent, and interprets what was foretold, as about to happen, by 
that which is seen to have occurred ? 

Amongst these locusts,—that is, as very learned men justly 
deem, amongst the innumerable troops of monks—none, as we 
before said, have ever appeared, more keen, or better prepared 
and equipped for doing mischief, than are the Jesuits at this 
present day; who in a short space have surpassed all other 
societies of that kind in numbers, in credit, and in audacity. 
Other monks, following the rule and practice of former times, 
lived in general a life of leisure and inactivity, and spent their 
time, not in reading and the study of the sciences, but in repeating 
by the glass certain offices for the canonical hours, which con- 
tributed nothing to the advancement of either learning or religion. 
But the Jesuits have pursued a far different course. They have 
left the shade of ancient sloth and inactivity, in which the other 
monks had grown grey, and have come forth to engage in toils, 
to treat of arts and sciences, to undertake and carry through an 
earnest struggle for the safety of the common interests. It hath 
come to be understood, that the cause of Rome, which, shaken by 
the perilous blows dealt on every side by men of ability and 
learning, had begun in many parts to totter and give way, 
could never be defended or maintained, except by learned and 
diligent and active champions. 


For just as a dilapidated mansion, unless propped up almost 


EPISTLE DEDICATORY. 5 


every day by fresh and firm buttresses, will suddenly fall in a 
violent and total ruin; so they perceived that the Roman syna- 
gogue, tottering as it is and threatening to fall, in its wretched 
state of decay and dilapidation, hath need continually of new 
supports and bracings, to maintain any remnant of its state and 
dignity under the pressure of such vehement assaults. Yet, with 
all their efforts, shall they never be able to avert the imminent 
calamity, or rescue themselves from perdition. But as buildings, 
whose foundations are subverted, their walls pierced, their roofs 
uncovered, having no part secure, can never be supported long 
by any multitude of artificial props; so that church of theirs, 
all rent and torn on every side, in which nor roof, nor pillar, 
nor foundation remains sound, intrinsically devoid of firmness and 
integrity, must at length fall headlong, and crush many to de- 
struction in its ruins. We are not to believe that the Roman 
church is flourishing, because the Jesuits are often able to impose 
upon inconstant and unskilful persons, and lead them into the 
popish fraud by the lures and blandishment of their fallacious 
reasoning, any more than we should think that health and life 
is restored to the frame that labours in a mortal malady, when 
it gains, for a moment, some casual alleviation of its pain. Let 
the Jesuits do their best; let them exert, if possible, still more 
intense sedulity, and omit nothing that learning and diligence can 
accomplish without the aid of truth. Yet all they can accomplish 
will be this,—to prop a falling house with mounds and buttresses, 
to afford some brief refreshment to antichrist, now gasping in his 
last long agony,—and, despite of all the rules of physic, apply 
remedies to a desperate disease. 

Amongst these Jesuits, Robert Bellarmine, a native of Italy, 
hath now for several years obtained a great and celebrated name. 
At first he taught scholastic divinity in Belgium; but afterwards, 
having removed to Rome, he treated of theological controversies 
in such a manner as to excite the admiration and gain the applause 
of all. His lectures were eagerly listened to by his auditors, 
transcribed, transmitted into every quarter, and treasured up as 


6 EPISTLE DEDICATORY. 


jewels and amulets. After some time, for the sake of rendering 
them more generally useful, they were epitomized by a certain 
Englishman. Finally, the first volume of these controversies 
hath been published at Ingolstadt, printed by Sartorius; and the 
rest are expected in due time’. Now, therefore, Bellarmine is 
cried up by his party as an invincible champion, as one with 
whom none of our men would dare to engage, whom nobody can 
answer, and whom if any one should hope to conquer, they would 
regard him as an utter madman. | 

When you, honoured sir, demanded my opinion of this writer, 
I answered, as indeed I thought, that I deemed him to be a man 
unquestionably learned, possessed of a happy genius, a penetrating 
judgment, and multifarious reading ;—one, moreover, who was 
wont to deal more plainly and honestly than is the custom of 
other papists, to press his arguments more home, and to stick more 
closely to the question. Thus, indeed, it became a man who had 
been trained in the schools, and who had made the handling of 
controversies his professed business, to dismiss all circumlocutions 
and digressions, and concern himself entirely with the argument ; 
and, having read all that had been previously written upon the 
subject, to select those reasons and replies which seemed to have 
most strength and sinew in them. In the prosecution of which 
task, he was led to weigh everything with a profound and anxious 
solicitude, and has sometimes differed from all his predecessors, and 
struck out new explanations of his own; perceiving, I suppose, 
that the old ones were not sound enough to be relied on. We 
have an instance (Lib. 1. de Verbo Dei, c. 16) in his treatment 
of 1 Cor. 14, where the apostle forbids the use of a strange 
language in the church. The former popish writers had usually 
understood that place to speak of exhortations or sermons to the 


[! The first complete edition of Bellarmine's Controversies was printed, 
according to Bayle, at Ingolstadt, in three Tomes, 1586. The oldest edition 
which I have seen is that of 1588, printed also at Ingolstadt by Sartorius, 


in three Tomes. Alegambus states that the first Tome was printed so 
early as 1581.] 


EPISTLE DEDICATORY. 7 


people; or, if they conceded that it might be understood of divine 
service, interpreted it so as to require that the words of the minis- 
ter should be understood, not by the whole congregation, but only 
by him who made the responses in their name. But Bellarmine, 
having reflected upon the falsehood and weakness of these evasions, 
hath invented another for himself; and pretends that the apostle 
is speaking not of the offices of divine service, nor yet of the 
public reading of the scriptures, but only of certain spiritual 
songs and canticles. What, however, or what sort of things 
these were, or why they required to be recited in a known 
language more than the common prayers or the scripture lessons, 
it is not so easy to understand. But of this place of the apostle, 
and this new pretence of Bellarmine’s, we have discoursed suf- 
ficiently at large in the second question, chap. 18, of this con- 
troversy. 

So again, (Lib. rr. cap. 2) where he is answering an objection 
drawn from St Peter’s calling the prophetic word a lamp, he does 
not answer, as Hosius did (Lib. mr. contra Proleg. Brentii), that 
in the prophecies there are many things plain, and that what is 
enigmatically spoken in the prophets is expressed clearly in the 
gospel; but he says that prophecy is called a lamp, not because it 
is easily understood, but because it illuminates when it zs under- 
stood. He saw clearly that Hosius! exposition left our doctrine of 
the perspicuity of scripture in sufficient strength, and therefore 
excogitated this new one; upon which we have treated, Quest. iv. 
chap. 4. 

In the same way, when we maintain that the mysteries of 
the faith should be concealed from no one, and allege, in proof, 
those words of Christ, * What ye hear in the ear, that proclaim 
ye upon the house-tops;" Bellarmine, (Lib. 1v. c. 12) has recourse 
to a strange and hitherto, I think, unheard of interpretation ; — 
that is, says he, if need so require. He gives the allegation no 
other reply whatever; and how proper and apposite an answer 
this is, I am content that others should determine. 

Again, when we urge that the scripture is called canonical, and 


8 EPISTLE DEDICATORY. 


therefore is, what that very appellation indicates, the rule of faith 
and of living; Bellarmine answers confidently in the same chapter, 
that the scripture was not published to be the rule of our faith, 
but to serve “as a sort of commonitory, useful to preserve and 
cherish the faith received by preaching.” So that, according to 
this new interpretation of Bellarmine’s, we learn that the scriptures 
are no rule of faith at all, but a certain commonitory,—an honour 
which they share with many others ;—nor yet even a necessary 
one, but only useful to the end of preserving the traditions. 
This is a noble judgment of the value of scripture, and alto- 
gether worthy of a Jesuit!—a judgment which leaves the bible 
only the office of admonishing us, as if we only required to be 
admonished, and not taught. 

Bellarmine hath innumerable such new discoveries; with which 
he defends the papal cause in a different manner, indeed, from 
that of its former patrons, but yet is so far from really serving 
it, that he hath rather done it the greater damage and injury 
with discreet and attentive readers, who have any care for their 
faith and religion. For hence it appears that, while Bellarmine 
cannot approve the answers of others, it is impossible to invent 
new ones, which are not worse than the old. 

I remember, too, that in the course of that same conversa- 
tion between us, I allowed Bellarmine the merit of dealing less 
dishonestly with the testimonies of the fathers than is customary 
with others, and of not captiously or maliciously perverting the 
state of the question; a fault which, I found, had particularly 
disgusted you in certain writers; whereas religious disputes and 
controversies should be managed in such a way as to eschew all 
craft, and seek truth, and truth alone, with a holy earnestness. 
I acknowledged that, while our adversaries erred grossly in this 
respect, our own party stood not so wholly clear of the same 
fault, as became the investigators of truths so sacred; which, in 
proportion as they are more heavenly in their nature, and concern 
us more nearly, should be searched into and handled with so 
much the more sincerity. 


EPISTLE DEDICATORY. 9 


But, since many—more eager for contention than for truth— 
propose to themselves scarcely any other object than to be able to 
say something against their opponents, and to be esteemed the 
champions of a cause, which they love much better than they un- 
derstand ; so it comes to pass, that the just state of the question is 
laid aside with a cold neglect, and truth, as usual, is lost in alter- 
cation. Thus Bellarmine himself, where he undertakes to impugn 
our doctrine of the perspicuity of scripture (Lib. ur. c. 1), lays 
this down as the state of the question, * Whether scripture be so 
plain in itself as to be sufficient, without any explication, to deter- 
mine controversies of faith ;" and he imposes upon us the office of 
maintaining that the scriptures are in themselves most plain and 
easy, and stand in need of no interpretation:—as if we either 
thought that every part of scripture was plain, easy, and clear, 
or ever rejected the exposition and interpretation of the scriptures ! 
Could Bellarmine really hope to impose upon us in so gross a 
manner, as to make us confess that to be our opinion which had 
never so much as entered into our thoughts? But to this we 
have given a sufficiently plain answer in our fourth question. 

I could wish that this were the only place in which Bellarmine 
had shewn bad faith, and that he had not elsewhere also played 
the Jesuit in matters of no small importance. For there can be 
no end of writing and disputing, no decision of controversies, no 
concord amongst Christians, until, laying aside all party feelings, 
and assuming the most impartial desire and design of investigating 
truth, we apply ourselves entirely to that point where the stress of 
the controversy lies. 

And now (since I am addressing one who is accustomed both 
to think of these matters often and seriously himself, and to listen 
to others delivering their own opinions upon them also), allow me 
briefly to explain, and commend to your consideration, a thing 
whieh I have long wished for, and which I trust might be ac- 
complished with singular advantage and with no great difficulty. 
Our adversaries have very often demanded a disputation, and 
declared that they especially wish and long for permission to hold 


10 EPISTLE DEDICATORY. 


a scholastical contest with us upon the subject of those questions 
which form the matter of our present controversies. Whether this 
demand be made hypocritically, as many suppose, or sincerely, I, 
for my part, would desire that they may have their asking. For, 
although they cannot deny that they have often been disputed 
with in Germany, France, and England, nay, that those learned 
men Melancthon and Brentius repaired to Trent for the sole purpose 
of defending the confessions of their churches against the Popish 
theologians ; yet I would have them made to understand, that they 
have no reason for believing that their cause hath become one 
whit the better, since it hath been espoused by its Jesuit patrons, 
than it was heretofore, when defended by the ancient orders. Let 
the Jesuits be allowed acute, ready, practised, eloquent, and full of 
resources; let them be, in a word, whatever they are, or are be- 
lieved to be: yet truth is ever one and the same; and still, the 
more it is attacked, shines out with greater brilliancy and lustre. 
Perhaps, indeed, it will be said that none can be found who would 
dare to stand a conflict with the Jesuits, or are fit to be matched 
with such opponents. I know well, for my part, how confident and 
boastful these men are, and what a look and mien they assume 
in disputation; as if they had only learned how most arrogantly 
to despise their adversaries, not how to give a better answer to 
their arguments, Yet, since the sacred laws of such conferences 
secure to each man just so much advantage, and no more, as he 
can win by reason and argument, and whatever is said must be 
reduced to the rules of Syllogism ; there remains no ground to fear 
that painted falsehood will prevail more than simple and naked 
truth. Not to speak of foreign nations and churches, where every 
one knows that there is abundance of learned men, this island itself 
possesses persons well skilled in every kind of learning, who could 
readily, not only explain the truth, but defend it also against any 
adversaries. In both our Universities there are men so practised 
and skilled in every portion of these controversies, that they would 
rather forfeit their recognisance, than shrink from a dispute so 
honourable, just, and necessary. 


EPISTLE DEDICATORY. 11 


Nor do I see that any so great inconvenience is to be appre- 
hended from this course, as some suspect. For, although those who 
are bound to this cause by a blind superstition, will probably be so 
far from reaping any advantage, that they will rather be rendered 
still more obstinate, and some fickle people will, perhaps, be even 
alienated from our side; as, in every disputation, opinions incline 
different ways, according as the several auditors are capable of 
judging or inclined to attend and reflect ;—-yet, we may reasonably 
augur the following important results: First, it would easily appear, 
what is the true state of the question in each controversy ; which 
should be pressed, driven home, and discussed, without regard to 
impertinent and trifling altercations. In the next place, it cannot 
be doubted, that all who measured religion, not by the decrees of 
men or their own caprice, but by the standard of the holy serip- 
tures, and were ready to acknowledge and embrace the truth when 
it was found, would easily reject the rotten devices of the papists, 
and prefer that sound and wholesome doctrine of the faith, which 
our churches have drawn from the pure springs of scripture, to 
their old and idle superstition. Lastly, the wishes of our adversaries 
would be satisfied; nor could they any longer, with any shew of 
probability, reproach us openly with cowardice. Yea, the truth 
itself, which we profess, would rise above the suspicion which it has 
incurred in the minds of some, and establish itself in the light 
and conscience of all the world. There is nothing which truth 
fears so much as to be prevented from appearing in publie, and be- 
ing exposed to the examination of all men. It would rather have 
any patron that is not absolutely dumb, than go without defence 
from the unrighteous calumnies of unjust accusers. One thing only 
I would have carefully provided. Prudent and grave moderators 
should preside in this disputation; who should restrain petulance, 
repress clamours, permit no breach of decorum, and maintain order, 
modesty and discipline, I have now laid before you my thoughts 
and wishes. The determination rests with those who are at the 
helm of church and state ;—with yourself especially, in regard of 
that singular wisdom which hath ever distinguished you in every 
judgment and deliberation, I now return to Bellarmine. 


12 EPISTLE DEDICATORY. 


I am rejoiced that these controversies of his, so much celebrated 
in common report, have now been published by himself; so as that 
we all may easily judge of their quality, their value, their strength, 
and their importance, nor believe Bellarmine to be any other than 
we find him by their evidence. And, although our adversaries’ 
opinions might be collected from the many other writers who have 
appeared in great numbers on the same side; yet, since there are 
many points upon which they do not all agree, it hath been a matter 
of some obscurity hitherto, to ascertain the real judgment of the 
Roman church. But now that Bellarmine hath been published, we 
shall know better and more certainly what it is they hold upon 
every subject, the arguments on which they specially rely, and 
what is (so to speak) the very marrow of popery, which is thought 
to be as much in the Jesuits as in the pope himself Knowing, 
therefore, how much our party desire that these Jesuits should be 
answered, and having fallen in with a manuscript copy of Bel- 
larmine's Lectures, I thought it worth my while to handle these 
same controversies in the schools in the discharge of the duties of my 
office, to discuss the new sophisms of the Jesuits, and vindicate our 
unadulterated truth from the captious cavils with which the popish 
professor had entangled it. Afterwards, being often requested by 
many persons to publish some of my disputations against our ad- 
versaries, and let the whole church share in the benefit of my toil 
and studies, I determined to commit to the press this controversy 
concerning Scriprure, which is the. first of them; and which, 
forming, as it does, a sort of vestibule to the rest, and sufficing of 
itself to fill a reasonable volume, seemed, as it were, to demand 
that I should not wait until I had completed the remainder, but 
publish it by itself, and separate from all the others. 

In all this I did nothing without the approbation of the most 
reverend father, the archbishop of Canterbury,—a man of the 
greatest wisdom and the greatest learning, who, having read and 
thoroughly considered this whole controversy, declared it worthy 
of publication. Now that it is published, I dedicate it to you, most 
noble Cecil, whom I have ever esteemed the great patron and 
Mecenas of my studies; you, in whom this college prides herself 


EPISTLE DEDICATORY. 18 


as a member of her body, and will always, as long as she stands, 
challenge to herself on this account a just prerogative; you, whom 
our university respects as chancellor; whom the whole state cele- 
brates as the father of your country ; whom the church recognises 
as a son serviceable both to its interest and safety. I pray God 
that he may preserve you ever in safety and prosperity to our 
church, state, university, and college. Farewell. 


. Your most devoted servant, 


WILLIAM WHITAKER. 


CamBRIpGE. From the College of St John 
the Evangelist. Apri 30, 1588. 





PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES, 


DELIVERED 


TO THE AUDIENCE AT CAMBRIDGE. 





I ruts day enter upon a new undertaking, often demanded by 
many and not unworthy of our university, the attempt to go 
through those controversies, both numerous and great, as ye all 
perceive, which are agitated between the Roman popish synagogue 
and our churches reformed according to the word of God.  Ac- 
customed as I have hitherto been to handle a sedate quiet kind of 
theology, I here come suddenly upon the sternest strifes and most 
violent contentions. I hope that this will appear matter of surprise 
or censure to none of you; at least I should desire that the object 
of my intentions and design should meet with approbation from 
you all. For I have not been led to this undertaking through 
any rashness, or unreasonable and fickle impulses and movement 
of my feelings, through disgust of old subjects to look out for new 
ones; but have proceeded with thought and deliberation, and not 
without the authority and encouragement of those who have the 
greatest influence in our church and university. Upon these grounds, 
I am confident that I shall undertake the task upon which I am now ~ 
entering, not only without blame from any one, but with the highest 
satisfaction to all except the papists: which consideration inspires 
me with still greater alacrity for these controversies, although I am 
by no means ignorant that the toil which I shall have to undergo 
in managing them is at the same time increased and doubled. But 
for your interests I should willingly do anything, and spare no 
labour which I can perform. Indeed, if I wished to indulge myself, 
or had any concern for my own leisure, I should never have 
launched out upon this most stormy sea of controversies, in which 
I shall be exposed to such a tossing as I have never yet expe- 
rienced in fulfilling the duties of my office, and where all the 
diligence must be applied, which is required by a business of the 
highest difficulty. But since our undertaking is both noble and 
necessary, and long and earnestly desired by you, it did not become 
me to balk your desires on account of the trouble of the task, but 


. PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES, 15 


to lay out for the common good whatever strength and ability I 
may possess. 

Now of this discourse I perceive that the utility, or rather the 
necessity, is three-fold. In the first place, we have to treat not 
of the opinions of philosophers, which one may either be ignorant 
of, or refute with commendation,—not of the forms of the lawyers, 
in which one may err without damage,—not of the institutions of 
physicians, of the nature and cure of diseases, wherein only our 
bodily health is concerned,—not of any slight or trivial matters ; 
—but here the matter of our dispute is certain controversies of 
religion, and those of the last importance, in which whosoever errs 
is deceived to the eternal destruction of his soul. Ina word, we 
have to speak of the sacred scriptures, of the nature of the church, 
of the sacraments, of righteousness, of Christ, of the fundamentals 
of the faith; all which are of that nature, that if one be shaken, 
nothing can remain sound in the whole fabric of religion. If what 
these men teach be true, we are in a miserable condition; we are 
involved in infinite errors of the grossest kind, and cannot possibly 
be saved. But if, as I am fully persuaded and convinced, it is 
they who are in error, they cannot deny that they are justly con- 
demned if they still persist in their errors. For if one heresy be 
sufficient to entail destruction, what hope can be cherished for those 
who defend so many heresies with such obstinate pertinacity ? 
Therefore either they must perish, or we. It is impossible that 
we can both be safe, where our assertions and belief are so contra- 
dictory. Since this is so, it behoves us all to bestow great pains 
and diligence in acquiring a thorough knowledge of these matters, 
where error is attended with such perils. 

Besides, there is another reason which renders the handling of 
these controversies at the present time not only useful, but even 
necessary. The papists, who are our adversaries, have long since 
performed this task; they have done that which we are now only 
beginning to do. And although they can never get the better of 
us in argument, they have nevertheless got before us in time. 
They have two professors in two of their colleges, Stapleton at 
Douay, Allen at Rheims, both countrymen of ours, (besides other 
doctors in other academies,) who have explained many controversies 
and published books, Stapleton on the Church and Justification, 
Allen on the Sacraments. But beyond them all, in the largeness 
wherewith he hath treated these controversies, is Robert Bellar- 
mine, the Jesuit at Rome, whose lectures are passed from hand to 


16 PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES. 


hand, and diligently transcribed and read by very many. Indeed 
I should wish that they were published, and am surprised that they 
are not. But many copies of these lectures fly about everywhere 
among the papists, and sometimes, in spite of their precautions, fall 
into our hands. Shall we then, whilst these men defend their own 
side with such activity and zeal, lie idle and think nothing of the 
matter? These things, although they were in a fragmentary 
manner explained by the papists, in many commentaries and sepa- 
rate books, yet are now handled in one single volume by them- 
selves; the object and design of which proceeding cannot possibly 
be a secret to any one. Why then should not we do the same, 
and put a complete body of controversies into men’s hands, col- 
lecting and compacting into one book whatever hath been disputed 
in defence of the truth against popery, by writers of our own or 
of any other party ? It is not every one that can at once form 
a judgment of an argument, or find out a fitting reply in the books 
of our divines. We must take measures for the security of these 
persons, and especially at the present time, when so many, partly 
by the reading of such books as are every day published by our 
adversaries, partly by too great a familiarity with papists, have 
fallen under a deplorable calamity, and deserted from us to the 
popish camp. 

Indeed, when I compare our side with the papists, I easily 
perceive the great truth cf Christ’s saying, that “the children 
of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of 
light.” Mark well, I beseech you, with what solicitude, vigilance, 
and cunning, these men maintain their own kingdom! They 
prevent their people from reading our books, and forbid them to 
have any intercourse with us, that so they may provide against 
the influence of that contagion which they fear. Surely this is 
wisely done. Who can deny it? For if we be heretics, as they, 
though falsely, exclaim, it is but a just consequence of that opinion 
of us to denounce us, as persons to be carefully avoided by all who 
are under their control. In the meanwhile we buy, read, peruse 
all the productions of those whom we justly esteem heretics, and 
never suspect the possibility of any damage accruing from our 
conduct. Hence unskilful persons are easily deceived ; especially 
if there be any encourager at hand to lend an impulse, as there are 
at present everywhere too many. We avoid the acquaintance of 
no one; yea, we take a pleasure in conversing with papists. This 
is all well if your aim and desire be to reclaim them from their 


PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES. 17 


errors, and if you are able to do this, and see that there is any 
hope of them remaining. Those who are perverse and desperate 
should be left to themselves; you can do them no service, and they 
may do you much damage. I commend courtesy in every one, 
specially in an academic or man of letters; but courtesy should not 
be so intent upon its duties towards men as to forget piety and its 
duty towards God.  Bellarmine compares heresy to the plague, 
and rightly. For the plague does not hang about the outward 
limbs, but attacks the heart, immediately poisons it with its venom, 
and suddenly destroys him who but a little before was in health; 
then it spreads a fatal contagion to others also, and often pervades 
a whole family, sometimes fills the state itself with corpses and 
funerals. In like manner heresy especially assails the heart, and 
expels faith from the mind; then creeps further and diffuses itself 
over many. If then you tender your salvation, approach not 
near so deadly a pestilence without an antidote or counterpoison. 
Speaking of Alexander the coppersmith, Paul gives this admonition, 
2 Tim. iv. 5, “ Of whom be thou ware also;” and subjoins as the 
reason of this caution, “for he hath greatly withstood our words.” 
Those, therefore, who not only cherish in their own minds a perverse 
opinion in religion, but cry out against and oppose sound doctrine, 
and resist it to the utmost of their power, with such persons it is 
perilous and impious to live on pleasant and familiar terms. For, 
as the same apostle elsewhere directs, Tit. ii. 10, “ A man that is 
a heretic, after the first and second admonition, must be avoided. 
For he is subverted, and sins against his own conscience, and is 
condemned by his own judgment." Tertullian, in his Prescriptions 
against heretics, declares that heresy should be “avoided as a 
deadly fever." Now “fever,” says he!, “as is well known, we 
regard as an evil, in respect both of its cause and its power, with 
abomination rather than with admiration; and, as far as we can, 
strive to avoid it, not having its extinction in our own power. But 
heresies inflict eternal death, and the burning of a still intenser 
fire." And Cyprian, Epist. 40?, * Fly far from the contagion of 


[! Febrem ut malum, et de causa et potentia sua, ut notum est, abomi- 
namur potius quam miramur, et quantum in nobis est precavemus, non 
habentes abolitionem ejus in nostra potestate: hsereses vero mortem zeter- 
nam et majoris ignis ardorem inferent. Preescript. Heeret. c. ii.] 

[? i.e. in Pamelius’ edition: but in Fell's (Amstel. 1691) Ep. xliii. p. 82. 
The words are: Procul ab hujusmodi hominum contagione discedite, et ser- 


2 


. [WHITAKER. | 


18 PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES. 


such men, and shun by flight their discourses as a canker or a 
pestilence ; since the Lord hath forewarned us, saying, ‘ They are 
blind, and leaders of the blind." Similar to this is the admonition 
of Jerome, in his Epistle to Pammachius and Oceanus: “ Beware, 
reader, of reading: fly the viper!” Thus it behoves us to fly as 
poisonous vipers, not only the discourse, but the books and letters 
of heretical persons. For, as Ambrose says in his 80th Epistle, 
heretics * shed forth the speech of serpentine discourse, and, 
turning catholic truth into the madness of their own doctrine, 
traduce it after the example of the devil, and deceive the simplicity 
of the sheep?.” If this be true at any time, surely we have felt it 
true of the papists in our time. But let us return to the tenor of 
our present discourse. 

Besides the advantages of this task already enumerated this 
should be added, in the third place, that, when a fixed method of 
controversies hath been handled and explained by us, you will be 
enabled to set down and assign to its proper place and division 
whatever you may read yourselves in the books of ancient or later 
divines of any pertinence to these subjects, or whatever arguments 
against the papists may be suggested by your private meditations. 
Many things escape us in the course of our reading or reflexion, 
from our not knowing to what head they should be referred; and 
many are ill arranged, so that, although we have noted them down, 
yet they do not readily present themselves at the proper time. But 
when every thing is duly distributed in meet order, it will be easy both 
to copy what we please in its appropriate place, and to find it there 
again whenever we chance to have occasion. And perhaps, in this 
first essay of ours, some things will be omitted—(though we shall 
endeavour not to seem to omit many things and those of principal . 
importance)—but if any thing be omitted, it will claim its own 
place, and (as it were) its proper receptacle, when our work passes 
under a second review. 

And since the new popery, which in general may be called 
Jesuitism, differs widely from the old, and the former scholastic 


mones eorum velut cancer et pestem fugiendo vitate, preemonente Domino et 
dicente, Czeci sunt et execorum duces.] 

[* Cave, Lector, ne legas; fuge viperam.] 

[? Sermonem serpentine disputationis effundunt, atque veritatem catho- 
licam vertendo ad sux doetrinz rabiem diabolico more traducunt, atque 
ovium simplicitatem defraudant.] 


PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES. 19 


divinity delivered many things much otherwise than they are now 
maintained by the Roman church; we must, lest we should seem 
to construe the doctrines of the papists otherwise than the practice 
of the Roman church requires, or to take for granted what they 
grant not, or to ascribe to them opinions which they disclaim, take 
care to follow this order, namely, first to inquire what the 
council of Trent hath determined upon every question, and then 
to consult the Jesuits, the most faithful interpreters of that 
council, and other divines, and our countrymen at Rheims amongst 
the rest. And since Bellarmine hath handled these questions with 
accuracy and method, and his lectures are in every body’s hands, 
we will make him, so to speak, our principal aim, and follow, as it 
_were, in his very footsteps. 

Our arms shall be the sacred scriptures, that sword and shield 
of the word, that tower of David, upon which a thousand bucklers 
hang, and all the armour of the mighty, the sling and the 
pebbles of the brook wherewith David stretched upon the ground 
that gigantic and haughty Philistine. Human reasonings and tes- 
timonies, if one use them too much or out of place, are like the 
armour of Saul, which was so far from helping David that it rather 
unfitted him for the conflict. Jerome tells Theophilus of Alexandria, 
that “a sincere faith and open confession requires not the artifice 
and arguments of words?," However, since we have to deal with 
adversaries who, not content with these arms, use others with 
more readiness and pleasure, such as decrees of councils, judg- 
ments of the fathers, tradition, and the practice of the church; 
lest perchance we should appear to shrink from the battle, we have 
determined to make use of that sort of weapons also. And, indeed, 
I hope to make it plain to you, that all our tenets are not only 
founded upon scriptural authority, which is enough to ensure victory, 
but command the additional suffrage of the testimonies of fathers, 
councils, and, I will add, even of many of the papists, which is a 
distinguished and splendid ornament of our triumph. In every 
controversy, therefore, after the sacred scriptures of the old and new 
Testaments, we shall apply to the councils, the fathers, and even to 
our adversaries themselves; so as to let you perceive that not only 
the ancient authors, but even the very adherents of the Roman 
church, may be adduced as witnesses in the cause. Thus it will be 
clear, that what Jerome, Epist. 139, applies out of Isaiah to the 

[? Fides pura et aperta confessio non querit strophas et argumenta 
verborum. Epist. lxii. ad Theophil.] 
2—2- 


920 PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES, 


heretics, that “they weave the spider’s thread," is pertinently 
applied to the papists. For, as Jerome says, they weave a 
web! * which can catch small and light animals, as flies and gnats, 
but is broken by the stronger ones." Just thus many stick fast in 
the subtleties of the papists, as flies do in the spider's web, from 
which they are unable to extricate themselves, though nothing can 
possibly be frailer than those threads. Such are the reasonings of 
the papists, even the Jesuits themselves; who, although they seem 
to spin their threads with greater skill and artfulness, yet fabricate 
nothing but such cobwebs as may easily be broken by any vigorous 
effort. Be ye, therefore, of good cheer. We have a cause, believe 
me, good, firm, invincible. We fight against men, and we have 
Christ on our side; nor can we possibly be vanquished, unless we 
are the most slothful and dastardly of all cowards. Once wrest 
from the papists what they adduce beside the scripture, and you 
will presently see them wavering, turning pale, and unable to keep 
their ground. Yet I do not ascribe to myself all those gifts of 
genius, judgment, memory and knowledge, which are demanded 
by such a laborious and busy undertaking. I know well and 
acknowledge how slightly I am furnished with such endowments ; 
nor can any think so meanly of me as myself. But “I can do 
all things through Christ who strengtheneth me;” relying upon 
whose assistance I enter upon the combat. They come against us 
with sword, and shield, and armour: we. go against them in the 
name of Jehovah of Hosts, of the armies of Israel, whom they have 
defied. | 

But it is now time to distribute the controversies themselves 
under their proper heads, that we may see beforehand the order in 
which we are to proceed. Bellarmine hath reduced all the con- 
troversies to three articles of the Creed ;— 7 believe in the Catholic 
Church, the Communion of Saints, the Forgiveness of Sins. In 
this respect I shall not follow Bellarmine. I have another, and 
more certain, plan and method of my own. He could not frame 
to his method the controversy concerning scripture, which assuredly 
challenges the first place for its nobility and importance. He there- 
fore calls it & Proem, and says that he hath set it before the rest 
in the manner of a preface. But since popery is nothing else but 
mere antichristianism, it is evident that both must fall under the 
same rule and method, and that popery must have in it all the 


[! Que parva et levia capere potest animalia, ut muscas et culices, a forti- 
oribus statim rumpitur. Epist. cxxxix. ad Cyprianum.] 


PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES. 21 


heresies which belong to antichristianism. Now antichristianism 
consists not in the open and outward denial of Christ, or in the 
worn-out defence of obsolete heresies. For who would not imme- 
mediately recognise, cry out against and explode, the patrons of 
Cerinthus, Valentinus, Arius, Nestorius, and other heresiarchs of 
the same complexion? Who could tolerate amongst Christians him 
who should openly and publicly deny Christ? Antichrist was not 
so stupid as to hope that he would gain much by such a course as 
this. It was not fit, therefore, that antichrist should hold those 
errors which may be generally described as touching the nature of 
God, the mystery of the Trinity, the person of Christ. But, since 
antichrist must needs be the opposite of Christ, the same purpose 
must be gained in a more secret and more artful manner. For it 
is a certain mystery of iniquity, which in words establishes Christ, 
but in fact destroys him. This is the very antichristianism of the 
papists, who leave indeed the natures of Christ intact, but make 
away with the offices of Christ, and consequently Christ himself. 
For Jesus cannot be Christ, if he bear not all his offices and merits. 
Now these offices and benefits are designated by the very names 
Curist and Jesus. All the heresies of the papists (a very few 
excepted, which relate to his person,) concern these offices and 
merits of Christ: on which account it will be no inconvenient dis- 
tribution of the popish errors and heresies, to set them forth as 
they are tenets opposed to Christ and Jesus. 

Survey now, I beseech you, this whole body of antichristianism, 
as I shall submit it to your inspection, that you may see, as it were 
in one view, a monster mis-shapen, vast, horrible, and manifold. For 
I will present to you the very portraiture and lineaments, drawn 
out and expressed as it were with one stroke of the pencil; and 
afterwards distribute and describe its limbs more accurately, when 
we come to speak severally of each. The name of Curist denotes 
three offices, as you know, of Prophet, King, and Priest. That 
of Jesus sets before us the benefits of redemption and salvation ; 
and these latter benefits result from the former offices. For he 
was anointed to be our Prophet, King, and Priest, in order that he 
might discharge the function of our Saviour. Now, therefore, we 
should regard in Christ Jesus his offices and merits as well as his 
person. In the former the papists are wholly astray: in regard of 
‘his person they hold not many errors, but they have some. There 
‘are then two chief heads of these controversies; concerning the 
.offices and benefits of Christ Jesus, and concerning his person. 


92 PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES. 


Hear, therefore, what particular heresies they maintain against 
Christ Jesus. ! 

The first office is that of PRoprnET, which shews that the func- 
tion of supreme teacher is to be ascribed to Christ. This saving 
teaching Christ hath proposed to his church in the scriptures. In 
defending this office of Christ against the papists we handle 
these controversies concerning the scriptures; of the number of the 
canonical books of scripture; of vernacular versions of scripture; 
of the perspicuity of scripture; of the authority of scripture; of 
the interpretation of scripture; of the perfection of scripture in 
opposition to human traditions, upon which our adversaries lay 
such weighty stress as to equal them even to the scriptures them- 
selves. How far from slight this controversy is, you readily 
perceive. 

The second office of Christ is the Rovar, which all the 
heretical opinions of the papists concerning the church impugn. 
The kingdom of Christ is the church; in it he reigns and is sole 
monarch. This controversy is complex, and requires to be dis- 
tributed into its several parts. The church is either militant or 
triumphant. We must dispute first of the militant, and afterwards 
of the triumphant church. Our controversies concern either the 
whole church militant, or the members of it. Of the whole— 
what it 1s; of what sort; whether visible; by what notes dis- 
tinguished ; whether it may err; what power it possesses; 
whether the Roman be the true visible church of Christ. Next, 
we have to speak of the members of the church. These members 
are either collected in a council (which is the representative church), 
or considered separately. Here, therefore, we must treat of councils ; 
whether they must needs be assembled ; by whom they should be 
convoked; of what persons they should consist; what authority 
they have; who should be the chief president in a council; 
whether they are above the pope; whether they may err. Next, 
we come to the several members of the church. Now they are 
divided into three classes. There is the principal member, or 
head, the intermediate members, and the lowest. They affirm 
the Roman pontiff to be the head of the church militant: where- 
upon the question arises of the form of the church’s government; 
whether it be, or be not, monarchical ; whether the monarchy of the 
church was settled upon Peter; whether Peter was bishop of the 
church of Rome, and died there; whether the pope sueceeds Peter 
in his primacy ; whether he may err; whether he can make laws 


J| PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES. 23 


ecclesiastical; whether he can canonize saints; whether he hath 
temporal power; whether he be antichrist. The intermediate 
members are the clergy, of whom they make two sorts, some 
secular, some regular. Those are called secular, who are engaged 
in any ecclesiastical function. Now here arise controversies con- 
cerning the election and rank of these persons, whether celibacy 
be necessarily attached to the ministry, whether ministers be 
exempt from the secular yoke. The regulars are monks and mem- 
bers of religious orders. Here we have to discourse of evangelical 
counsels, of vows, of retirement, of the dress and labours of monks, 
of the canonical hours. The lowest members, as they arrange 
them, are laymen, even kings or emperors. Here we have to in- 
quire concerning the civil magistracy ; whether the care of religion 
appertains to the civil magistrate; whether he may punish heretics 
capitally ; whether he can ever be excommunicated or deposed by 
the pope; whether civil laws oblige the conscience. — And so far of 
the church militant. 

Next follows the chureh triumphant; which consists of angels 
and deceased saints. The controversies are, of the hierarchies, 
ministry, and invocation of angels. When we come to deceased 
saints, the occasion requires us to dispute, of the limbus patrum, 
of purgatory ; whether saints are to be invoked and adored, of the 
relics of saints, of the worship of images, of the temples of the 
saints, of their festivals, of pilgrimages to their places: and these 
controversies are concerning the royal office of Christ. 

His third office is that of Priest, which includes two functions, 
intercession and sacrifice. It pertains to intercession to inquire, 
whether Christ be the sole mediator of intercession. In the question 
of sacrifice, we shall have to explain the whole body of controversy 
concerning the sacraments; for by the sacraments, as so many 
means instituted by Christ, the efficacy of that sacrifice is derived 
to us, We must treat of sacraments, first generally, and then 
specially: generally, what a sacrament is, how many sacraments 
there be, what is the efficacy of the sacraments, what the distinction 
between the old and new sacraments: specially, concerning each 
of the sacraments by itself; and first, of baptism, whether those 
who die without baptism cannot be saved; whether laymen or 
women can baptize; whether John’s baptism was the same as 
Christ’s; whether the popish ceremonies are to be used in the ad- 
ministration of baptism. After the sacrament of baptism, we have 
to speak of the eucharist, which topic contains most important con- 


24 PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES. 


troversies, of transubstantiation, of the sacrifice of the mass, of com- 
munion in one kind. Next follow the five sacraments of the papists, 
upon which great controversies depend, of confirmation, of penance 
(where we shall have to treat of contrition, confession, satisfaction, 
indulgences), of extreme unction, of orders, of matrimony ; and all 
these controversies hitherto set forth belong to those three prime 
offices, which are signified by the name of Cunisr. 

Next we have to handle controversies concerning the benefits 
of our redemption and salvation, which are indicated by the very 
name of Jesus. Here first arise questions concerning predestination 
and reprobation; whether God hath predestinated or reprobated 
any persons, on what account he hath done so, whether predesti- 
nation be absolute. Next we have to treat of sin, what it is, how 
manifold, whether all are born with the infection of original sin, 
even the virgin Mary; whether all sins be equal; whether any sin 
be venial of itself; whether concupiscence after baptism be sin; 
whether God be the author of sin. Next in order, we must speak 
of the law, whether it can be fulfilled, and even more done than 
it commands. Afterwards we must explain the controversy con- 
cerning free-will; faith, what it is and how manifold; good works 
and merits; justification. 

In the last place, there remain a few questions concerning the 
person of Christ, as whether he is av7o@eos ; whether he increased 
in wisdom; whether he suffered in his soul the pains of hell, and 
whatever others there be of this sort. 

You have now the principal classes and heads of those contro- 
versies which are contested with the greatest earnestness between 
us and our adversaries at the present day. You see almost the 
whole mass and body of the popish heresies. In considering, re- 
volving, and explicating these matters it becomes us now to be 
wholly occupied. We must begin from the first, and proceed 
through the intermediate to the last, at which we hope at length 
to arrive, and pray that the issue may correspond to our hope and 
wishes. 





THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. 


QUESTION I. 





CHAPTER I. 


WHEREIN THIS WHOLE CONTROVERSY IS DISTRIBUTED INTO ITS 
PARTICULAR QUESTIONS, 


We will lay the foundation of this controvery in those words 
of Christ which are to be found in the fifth chapter of St John's 
Gospel at the thirty-ninth verse: “Epeuvare ras -ypadas, SEARCH 
THE Scriptures. Christ had been commended to the Jews by 
the testimony of John the Baptist. That testimony was most 
true and honourable; and could not be despised by the Jews 
themselves, amongst whom John lived in the highest respect and 
estimation. Yet Christ declares that he had others greater, more 
certain and more august than the testimony of John. He enume- 
rates three of them: first, the works which he performed; 
secondly, his Father who had sent him; thirdly, the holy scrip- 
tures themselves, which he calls his witnesses. The Jews, indeed, 
thought honourably of the scriptures, and supposed that eternal 
life might be found in them. Nor does Christ blame in the least 
that judgment of theirs concerning the scriptures, but rather praises 
it. He bids them go on to “search the scriptures;" he inflames in 
every way their zeal for the scriptures, and sharpens their industry. 
For he exhorts them not only to read, but search and thoroughly 
examine the scriptures: he would not have them content with a 
slight perusal, but requires an assiduous, keen, laborious diligence 
in examining and investigating their meaning, such as those apply 
who search with anxious toil for treasures buried in the earth. 

Now since Christ hath bid us search the scriptures without 
exception, not this part, or that part, or the other, it is mani- 
fest that in these words we are commanded to search the whole of 
scripture; not to confine ourselves to certain portions of it, while 
we despise or overlook the rest. All parts give plain testimony to 
Christ. But the scriptures are praised by the papists, as well as 


26 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


highly esteemed by us; nor is there any controversy, whether 
the seriptures are to be searched. But concerning the due man- 
ner of searching them, and who they are to whom that care 
appertains, and concerning the scriptures themselves, which we all 
unanimously affirm should be searched, there is a most important con- 
troversy, which I shall now attempt to explain. In order to effect 
this clearly and methodically, I think it may be all divided into six 
questions, after the following manner. 

We are commanded to search the scriptures: and for that 
purpose we must first understand, what are those genuine books 
of scripture, in searching and turning over which it behoves us to 
be occupied. The first question therefore shall be, Of the num- 
ber of the canonical books of scripture. 

We are commanded to search the scriptures: and therefore 
we must next consider, to whom this precept is addressed; whether 
only to the learned, and those skilled in the ancient languages, 
or to all the faithful. The second question therefore shall be, 
Of versions of the scripture and sacred rites in the vulgar 
tongue. 

We are commanded to search the scriptures: whence it appears 
that the scriptures enjoy a very high dignity and authority, since 
Christ himself appeals and refers us to them. The third question 
therefore shall be, Of the authority of scripture ; whether it have 
this so great credibility and dignity of itself, and from the Holy 
Ghost its author, or from the testimony of the church. 

We are commanded to search the scriptures: whence some 
hope appears to be shewn that we shall come to understand them, 
and gain much profit by the search, if we do as we are commanded. 
Therefore the fourth question shall be, Of the perspicuity of 
scripture. | 

We are commanded to search the scripture; that is, to seek 
and investigate the true sense of scripture, since the scripture lies 
wholly in the meaning. Therefore the fifth question shall be, Of 
the interpretation of scripture; how it is to be interpreted, and 
who has the right and authority of interpretation. 

We are commanded to search the scripture : and under the 
name of scripture the written word of God is plainly understood. 
Here then we must consider whether we are only bound to search 
the scripture, or whether, beside the scripture, something else be 
commended to our investigations. Therefore the sixth and last 
question shall be, Of the perfection of scripture; which I shall 


1.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 27 


prove to be so absolutely complete that we should wholly acquiesce 
in it, and need desire nothing more, and that unwritten traditions 
are by no means necessary for us. 

These questions I purpose to treat in the order in which I have 
proposed them. | 





CHAPTER II. 
CONCERNING THE STATE OF THE FIRST QUESTION. 


Tue books of scripture are called canonical, because they con- 
tain the standard and rule of our faith and morals. For the scrip- 
ture is in the church what the law is in a state, which Aristotle 
in his Politics calls a canon or rule. As all citizens are bound to 
live and behave agreeably to the publie laws, so Christians should 
square their faith and conduct by the rule and law of scripture. 
So, in Eusebius!, the holy fathers accuse Paul of Samosata of 
departing from the rule (azoc-ds a70 Tov kavovos), and becoming 
the author of an heretical opinion. So Tertullian, in his book 
against Hermogenes?, calls the scripture the rule of faith; and 
Cyprian says, in his discourse upon the baptism of Christ: “One 
will find that the rules of all doctrine are derived from this scrip- 
ture; and that, whatever the discipline of the church contains 
springs hence, and returns hither?." Chrysostom too, in his 13th 


(1 ómov Óé dmogrüs ToU kavóvos émi KiBdSnra kal vdba SiSdypara peredr- 
AvOev, ovdev Set ToU éÉo dvros tas mwpáfew kpivew. H. E. vir. 30. T. 3. p. 
391. ed. Heinich. Lips. 1828. But it is most probably the Creed that is 
there meant.] 

(2 Whitaker most probably refers to the famous passage, c. xxii. “ Adoro 
plenitudinem scripture,” &c. cited below, Qu. 6. c. xvi., and produced also 
by Cosin (Scholastical History of the Canon, chap. i. $. 1.) in proof that the 
Church always regarded scripture as “the infallible RuLE of our FAITH.” 
Some, however, suppose that Tertullian refers to scripture, and not the 
Creed, in these words: “ Solemus hereticis compendii gratia de posteritate 
prescribere: in quantum enim veritatis regula prior, que etiam futuras 
hereses proenuntiavit, in tantum posteriores queeque doctrine heereses prze- 
judieabuntur." Adv. Hermog. 1. (Opp. P. 1v. p. 1. ed. Leopold. Lipsiz, 1841.) 
For the Creed contains no prediction of heresies.] 

[? This treatise, falsely ascribed to Cyprian, may be found in the works 
of Arnold of Chartres (Carnotensis) subjoined to Fell's Cyprian (Amstel. 1691). 
The passage cited is at p. 33: “Inveniet ex hac scriptura omnium doctrina- 


28 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


Homily upon 2 Corinthians calls scripture the exact balance, and 
standard, and rule of all things." For the same reason Augustine 
affirms, that * whatever belongs to faith and moral life may be 
found in the scriptures!;” and he calls the scripture the scales, in 
the following passage: * Let us not apply deceitful scales, where 
we may weigh what we wish, and as we wish; but let us bring 
God's own scales from the holy scriptures,” &c. 

So Basil calls the sacred doctrine “the canon of rectitude and 
rule of truth,” which fails in no part of perfection: and Ruffinus, 
in his exposition of the creed, after enumerating the books of 
scripture, adds, ** These are the books which the fathers included 
in the canon, and from which they willed that the assertions of our 
faith should be demonstrated? ;” and then he subjoins: ** From 
these fountains of the divine word our cups are to be drawn?.” 
Aquinas too lays down, that “the doctrine of the apostles and 
prophets is called canonical, because it is, as it were, the rule of 
our intellect*." Hence it plainly appears why the scriptures are 
called canonical ;—because they prescribe to us what we must 
believe, and how we ought to live: so that we should refer to this 
test our whole faith and life, as the mason or architect squares his 
work by the line and plummet. — Hence, too, we may perceive that 
the scripture is perfect, since otherwise the title of canon or rule 
could hardly be applied to it; upon which point we shall have to 
speak under the sixth question. 

Now these books, which are called canonical, are comprised in 
the old and new Testaments, and are therefore styled Testa- 
mentary. So Eusebius calls these books evóia8:5 «ovs? ; and Nice- 
phorus often uses the same term. Some also call them dsaOyxo- 


rum regulas emanasse; et hine nasci, et huc reverti, quidquid ecclesiastica 
continet disciplina." But Arnold is not speaking of the whole scripture, but 
of the command to love God.] 

[! See these passages cited more fully below. Qu. 6. c. 16.] 

[? Hzc sunt que patres intra canonem concluserunt; ex quibus fidei 
nostre assertiones constare voluerunt. Ad Cale. Opp. Cypriani, p. 26, ut 
supra.] 

[3 Heee nobis a patribus, ut dixi, tradita opportunum visum est hoc in 
loco designare, ad instructionem eorum qui prima sibi ecclesie ac fidei 
elementa suscipiunt, ut sciant ex quibus sibi fontibus verbi Dei haurienda 
sint pocula. Ibid. p. 27.] 

[* Doctrina apostolorum et prophetarum canonica dicitur, quia est quasi 
regula intellectus nostri. Thomee Aquin. in 1 Tim. vi. Lect. 1.] 

[5 H. E. Lib. v. c. 25. oix evdvaOnxovs uév, dAAà kal avriXeyopévovs.] 


II. | QUESTION THE FIRST. 29 


rypapous. The question, then, between us and the papists is, 
What books are to be esteemed canonical and testamentary. Con- 
cerning many, and indeed the principal ones, we are agreed: con- 
cerning some we are at variance. But, in order that the true state 
of this question may be understood, we must see, in the first place, 
what the council of Trent hath determined upon this subject. Its 
words are as follows: * The synod hath deemed it fitting that a 
catalogue of the sacred books should be subjoined to this decree, 
lest any should have occasion to doubt what books are received by 
i5." Then it recites the books which are truly canonical, and 
are received by us without any hesitation. But it subjoins others 
which we do not acknowledge as canonical. Such are these six 
books: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, two books of Mac- 
cabees. These are the books of the old Testament. Afterwards, 
it enumerates the books of the new Testament, all of which we 
receive without any controversy, although they were not always 
alike received in the church, as you shall hear in the sequel. 
Finally, the council concludes in these words: ‘‘ Whoever does not 
receive these books entire with all their parts, as they are con- 
tained in the ancient Latin Vulgate, for sacred and canonical, let 
him be accursed?!” Here you have the decree of the Tridentine 
council, and the terrible sanction of that decree. From these pre- 
mises it now appears that we are required by the Tridentine 
fathers, if we would escape their anathema, to receive as autho- 
ritative canonical scripture not only those six entire books which 
we have mentioned, but besides certain parts of and additions to 
the books, as Baruch, the Hymn of the three Children, the histo- 
ries of Susannah and Bel and the Dragon, which are attributed to 
Daniel, and certain apocryphal chapters of the book of Esther: 
for it is thus that the Jesuits interpret the meaning of this decree. 
Now, therefore, the state of the question is this; whether these 
books, and these parts of books, should be received for sacred and 
canonical scriptures? They affirm: we deny. It remains that we 
should proceed to the discussion. I will first answer their arguments, 
and then proceed to the defence of our cause; which course I 


[$ Sacrorum vero librorum indicem huic decreto adhibendum censuit, ne 
cui dubitatio suboriri possit, quinam sint, qui ab ipsa synodo suscipiuntur. 
Concil. Trid. Sess. 1v. Decret. 1.] 

[7 Si quis autem hos libros ipsos integros cum omnibus suis partibus, 
prout in ecclesia catholica legi consueverunt, et in veteri vulgata editione 
habentur, pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit... Anathema sit. Ibid.] 


30 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


intend to follow throughout, because I deem it most suitable to the 
matter we have in hand, and I perceive that it hath been gene- 
rally adopted by Aristotle. And since, as Nazianzen tells us, 
“every argument is designed either to establish our own opinion, 
or overturn the opposite!,” I will choose first to overturn the oppo- 
site opinion, and then to establish my own. 





CHAPTER III. 


CONCERNING THOSE HERETICS WHO WERE GUILTY OF SACRILEGE 
AGAINST THE SACRED AND CANONICAL SCRIPTURES, 


Bur, before I proceed, I deem it necessary for you to censure 
the madness of certain ancient heretics, who impiously removed 
some certain and undoubted parts of scripture from the sacred 
canon. Such heretics, indeed, there were in great numbers, as we 
read in Irenzus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, Augustine, and others. 
I shall not endeavour to go through them all, but will enumerate 
for you the principal. 

First of all, the Sadducees received no scriptures but the five 
books of Moses?. This many suppose to have been the reason 
why Christ (Matt. xxii.) refutes the Sadducees denying the resur- 
rection, by the testimony of the Mosaic scripture. Simon, follow- 
ing in their steps, declared that the prophets were not at all to be 
regarded; as lrenzus testifies, Lib. 1. e. 20. The Manichees 
rejected the whole old Testament, as proceeding from the evil God: 
for they imagined two gods, the one good and the other evil. Epi- 
phanius has treated upon this subject, Heres. Ixvi. So Saturninus 
rejected the God of the Jews, and consequently the whole old 
Testament, as Irenzus tells us, Lib. 1. c. 224. The impious Mar- 
cion insulted with a load of reproaches the God who is preached in 
the law and the prophets, and held that Christ had come to dis- 


[1 Aurrotd Ovros Aóyov mavrós, Tod pév Td olkeiov karackevá(ovros, ToU Oc Td 
ávriraXov dvarpézovros. Orat. Xxxv. p. 562. A. Nazianz. Opp. T. 1. Colon. 1690.] 

[? This common notion is reasonably doubted by many. See Jortin’s 
Remarks, B. x1. Appendix 1, on the Sadducees, Vol. 1. p. 439.] 

[* Prophetas autem a mundi fabricatoribus angelis inspiratos dixisse pro- 
phetias; quapropter nec ulterius curarent eos hi, qui in eum et in Selenen 
ejus spem habeant. P. 116. B. ed. Fevard. Paris. 1685.] 

[^ Judzcorum Deum unum ex angelis esse dixit, et... advenisse Christum 
ad destructionem Judzorum Dei ...... Prophetias autem quasdam quidem 


ii. | QUESTION THE FIRST. 31 


solve the law and the prophets, and the works of that God who 
made the world. This Irenzeus tells us5, Lib. r. e. 29. Such frantic 
men Christ himself expressly refutes by his own words, when he 
says, that he did not come to destroy the law and the prophets, 
but to fulfil. Matt. v. 17. This heresy Augustine also imputes to 
the Cerdonians, whom he affirms to hold the old Testament in con- 
tempt$, (dd Quod vult Deum, c. 21), and to the Severians, of 
whom he writes, ** They condemn the resurrection of the flesh and 
the old Testament’,” (ibid. c. 24.) Guido Cameracensis reckons 
this also amongst the heresies of the Albigenses. This heresy is 
refuted by Epiphanius, in the place which I have already cited, 
and most copiously by Augustine against Faustus the Manichee, 
and against the adversary of the law and the prophets. 

The Ptolemzans condemned the books of Moses?, as Epipha- 
nius relates, Heres. xxxii. The Nicolaitans and Gnostics ejected 
the book of Psalms from the sacred canon, as Philaster informs us, 
(in Lib. de Her. ec. 127); which heresy the Anabaptists have 
renewed in our times. But all these heretics are refuted by the 
clearest evidence of the new Testament. 

Many formerly, as Philaster relates (in Cat. c. 132, 133), 
rejected the books of Solomon, and especially Ecclesiastes and 
the Song of Songs; because in the former Solomon seems to invite 
men to a life of pleasure, and in the latter, to relate certain 
amatory discourses between himself and Pharaoh's daughter. But 
it is plain that these men fell into a manifest and impious error. 
For in Ecclesiastes Solomon does not allure men to enjoy the 
pleasures and blandishments of the world, but rather deters them 
from such pleasures, and exhorts them, with a divine eloquence, to 


ab iis angelis qui mundum fabricaverunt dictas ; quasdam autem a Satana, 
quem et ipsum angelum adversarium mundi fabrieatoribus ostendit; maxime 
autem Judzorum Deo. Ibid. p. 118, c.] 

[5 Marcion... impudorate blasphemans eum qui a lege et prophetis an- 
nunciatus est Deus... Jesum autem [dicens]... venientem in Judzam ... 
dissolventem prophetas et legem, et omnia opera ejus Dei qui mundum 
fecit. Ibid. p. 129, a.] 

($ Resurrectionem mortuorum negat, spernens etiam Testamentum Vetus. 
Augustini Opp. T. vin. col. 42, A. Paris. 1837.] ' 

(^ Carnis resurrectionem cum Vetere Testamento respuentes. Ibid. c.] 

[8 Ilapa yap ois eipnguévois wal tov vópuov tov Oeo0 Tov Sia Movoéos 
Bracdnpav obk aicxivera. Ed. Petav. Colon. 1682. T. 1. p. 216. See the 
curious epistle of Ptolemzeus to Flora, which he there subjoins, given also by 
Grabe, Spicil. 11. 69.] 


32 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cu. 


despise and contemn the present world. Thus at the very com- 
mencement he exclaims, “ Vanity of vanities, all is vanity :” 
in which words he declares that all those things which are sought 
after in this world, are uncertain, transitory, and fallacious. Whence . 
it necessarily follows that those are mad who acquiesce in the 
enjoyment of such objects. And so (after having disputed through 
the whole book against those who pursue these pleasures so 
greedily, and desire to satisfy themselves with such goods, what- 
ever they are) he at the close teaches that happiness consists not, 
as many suppose, in things of this kind, but in true piety, and 
thus concludes: * Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this 
is the whole of man.” This is not the judgment of an Epicurus, 
but of a holy prophet, withdrawing foolish men from the pursuit 
of worthless objects, and recalling them into the true path of a 
pious and a happy life. 

In the Song, if Solomon had wished to praise his wife, he 
would not have used such prodigious and absurd comparisons. For 
he compares her to the cavalry of Pharaoh, her head to Carmel, 
her eyes to fish-ponds, her nose to a tower, her teeth to a 
flock of sheep; and finally pronounces her whole person terrible 
as an army. Such things do not suit the daughter of Pharaoh 
and the bride of Solomon. They must, therefore, be referred 
to the mystic bride of another Solomon,—that is, to the Church 
of Christ, whose consummate union of faith and love with her 
spouse this whole book sets forth; as, indeed, all men of sound 
judgment have always determined. Nor is the fact, that none of 
the customary names of God occur in this book, any proof that 
it is not canonical. For, although such names are omitted, yet 
others are used of the same kind and importance, as shepherd, 
brother, friend, beloved, spouse, which were much more suitable to 
the style of such a piece: since he, whom the bride so often 
addresses under these names, is no other than Christ, at once the 
true Son of God, and the true God himself. 

We care little for the impious Anabaptists, who reject this book 
with contempt; nor can we at all excuse Castalio!, if he really wrote 


[! I write the name thus in conformity with Whitaker’s usage; but the 
correct form is Castellio. See the curious history of the origin of the other 
form in Bayle, CasraLio0, Rem. wm. With. respect to the imputation men- 
tioned in the text, Varillas charges it upon Castellio more definitely, stating 
this injurious opinion of the Canticles to be avowed by him in his argument 
to that book. Bayle observes, that in five editions of Castellio’s bible which he 


11, | QUESTION THE FIRST. 33 


what some object to him ;—that this book is nothing but a conver- 
sation which Solomon held with his Sulamith. 

The Anabaptists are said, at the present day, to reject and 
ridicule the book of Job, and some have written that it is called 
by those heretics a Hebrew "T'ragi- Comedy. This they would seem 
to have learned from the wicked Jews: for certain rabbins, 
authors of the Talmudic fables, affirm? that it is a fictitious story, 
and no such man ever existed. The impudence of these persons is 
refuted by other testimonies of scripture. For, in Ezekiel xiv. 14, 
the Lord says: “If these three men were in the midst thereof, 
Noah, Daniel, and Job, &c.” Whence we perceive that Job must 
have really existed, as no one doubts that Noah and Daniel did. 
Paul too cites a clear testimony from this book (1 Cor. iii. 19): 
* He taketh the wise in their own eraftiness ;" which words we 
find, in Job v. 13, to have been pronounced by Eliphaz. The 
apostle James, also, hath mentioned this man, James v. 11. Hence 
it is manifest that this was a true history, and that the book itself 
is canonical, and that they who determine otherwise are to be 
esteemed as heretics. 

Jerome, in the Proém of his Commentaries on Daniel?, relates 
that Porphyry the philosopher wrote a volume against the book of 
our prophet Daniel, and affirmed that what is now extant under 
the name of Daniel, was not published by the ancient prophet, but 
by some later Daniel, who lived in the times of Antiochus Epipha- 
nes. But we need not regard what the impious Porphyry may 
have written, who mocked at all the scriptures and religion itself, 


examined, he could find no argument to that book whatever. However, in the 
London edition of the Latin bible (in 4 vols. 12mo. 1726), there is the follow- 
ing: “Colloquium Servatoris et Ecclesie. Domestici in Ecclesive (Ecclesia) 
hostes. Servator, lilium Columba. Solomo Christi Imago. Ad puellas vir, 
et ad virum puelle.  Eeclesie pulchritudo. Servatoris in Ecclesiam Stu- 
dium. Ecclesia vinea copiosa."] 

[? Nosti quosdam esse, qui dicunt Jobum nunquam fuisse, neque creatum 
esse; sed historiam ejus nihil aliud esse quam parabolam. Maimonides, 
Moreh Nevoch. par. m1. c. 22. Compare Manasseh Ben Israel, de Resurr. 
Mort. p. 123.] 

(? Contra prophetam Danielem duodecimum librum scripsit Porphyrius, 
nolens eum ab ipso, cujus inscriptus est nomine, esse compositum, sed a quo- 
dam qui temporibus Antiochi Epiphanis fuerit in Judeea; et non tam Danie- 
lem ventura dixisse, quam illum narrasse preterita. T. rm. p. 1071, &c. ed. 
Bened.] 


[ WHITAKER.] : 


34 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cu. 


and whose calumnies were refuted by Eusebius, Apollinarius and 
Methodius}, as Jerome testifies in the above-cited place. So far 
concerning the old Testament. 

The new Testament, also, was formerly assaulted in various 
ways by heretics and others. The Manichees shewed themselves 
no less impious and sacrilegious towards the books of the new Tes- 
tament than they were towards those of the old. They were not 
afraid to say that the books of the apostles and evangelists were 
stuffed full of lies: which madness and frenzy of theirs Augustine 
hath most learnedly confuted in his thirty-second book against 
Faustus the Manichee. 

Others received no gospel but that of Luke, and hardly any 
other part of the new Testament; as Cerdon and his disciple Marcion. 
Tertullian speaks of these towards the end of his Prescriptions?: 
* Cerdon receives only the gospel of Luke, nor even that entire. 
He takes the epistles of Paul, but neither all of them, nor in their 
integrity. He rejects the Aets of the Apostles and the Apocalypse 
as false. After him appeared his disciple, Marcion by name, who 
endeavoured to support the heresy of Cerdon." These men took 
away almost the whole contents of the new Testament. 

The Valentinians admitted no gospel but that of John, as Ire- 
neous tells us? ; (Lib. ru. c. 11.) which error the papists charge on 
Luther also, but most falsely, as they themselves well know. The 
Alogians*, on the contrary, rejected all John's writings, and were 
so called because they would not acknowledge as God the Logos, 


[1 Cui solertissime responderunt Czsariensis Episcopus. .... Apollinarius 
quoque..... et ante hos, ex parte, Methodius. Ibid. ] 

" [2 Solum Evangelium Luce, nec totum recipit, Apostoli Pauli neque om- 
nes neque totas epistolas sumit; Acta Apostolorum et Apocalypsin quasi 
falsa rejicit. Post hunc discipulus ipsius emersit, Marcion quidam nomine... 
heeresin Cerdonis approbare conatus est. c. 51. This piece, which forms 
the concluding part of the Prescriptions (from c. 45), seems the work of 
some later hand.] 

[? Hi autem qui a Valentino sunt, eo quod est secundum Joannem ple- 
nissime utentes ad ostensionem conjugationum suarum, ex ipso detegentur 
nihil recte dicentes. p. 258, p.] 

[* Lardner, History of Heretics, chap. 23 (Works, 4to ed., Vol. Iv. p. 690), 
considers the existence of such a heresy very doubtful; but I cannot see 
sufücient ground for all his suspicions. However, it is hard to believe that 
any men in their senses ever ascribed all John's writings to Cerinthus, as 
Epiphanius seems to say, p. 424.] 


11. | | QUESTION THE FIRST. 35 


whom John declares to be God in the beginning of his gospel. 
This is related by Epiphanius (Her. Lib. 1.), who gave them this 
appellation upon that account. 

Irenzus relates? (Lib. 1. e. 26.), that the Ebionites received 
only the gospel according to Matthew, and rejected the apostle 
Paul as an apostate from the law. 

The Severians made no account of the Acts of the Apostles, as 
Eusebius informs us, Lib. 1v. e. 27°. 

The Marcionites rejected both epistles to Timothy, the epistle 
to Titus, and the epistle to the Hebrews, as Epiphanius records, 
Heer, xu! 

Chrysostom and Jerome’, in the Preface to the epistle of Paul 
to Philemon, testify that it was by some not received as canonical ; 
which conclusion they were led into by considering that human 
frailty could not bear the continual uninterrupted action of the 
Holy Ghost, and that the apostles must have spoken some things 
by a mere human spirit. Amongst these they classed this episile, 
as containing in it nothing worthy of an apostolic and divine au- 
thority, or useful to us. Chrysostom® refutes this opinion, with 
much truth and beauty, in the Argument of this epistle, and teaches 
us that many noble and necessary lessons may be learned from it: 
first, that we should extend our solicitude to the meanest persons: 
secondly, that we should not despair of slaves, (and therefore, still 
less of freemen,) however wicked and abandoned: thirdly, that it is 
not lawful for any one to withdraw a slave from his master under 
pretence of religion : fourthly, that it is our duty not to be ashamed 
of slaves, if they be honest men. Who now will say that this 
epistle is useless to us, from which we may learn so many and 


[> Solo autem eo quod est secundum Mattheum Evangelio utuntur, et 
Apostolum Paulum recusant, apostatam esse eum Legis dicentes. p. 127, c.] 

[6 BAaodnuodyres S€ Iatdov tov dmóoToXov, aberodvaw airoU tras émiToAds, 
p986 tas mpá£ews vOv dmooTÓNov karaüexópevoi, T. 1. p. 409.] 

[7 "EziooAàs rap’ abr Tov ayiov dmoaróAov Ocka, ais pdvats kéxprrat.. $. 9. 
T 35 800 Dj 

[5 Volunt aut epistolam non esse Pauli, que ad Philemonem scribitur; 
aut etiam si Pauli sit, nihil habere quod edificare nos possit.—Hieron. preef. 
in Ep. ad. Philem. T. 1v. p. 442.] 

[? The best edition of Chrysostom's admirable Commentary on the epistle 
to Philemon is that by Raphelius, subjoined to Vol. 1. of his Annotationes 
Philologiez. Lugd. Bat. 1747. The reader will find the passage here re- 
ferred to at pp. 28, 30, 32.] 

9—32 


36 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


. such distinguished lessons? Forasmuch, therefore, as this epistle 
was both written by Paul, and contains in it such excellent in- 
struction, it ought not by any means to be rejected. 

Such, then, was the opinion, or rather the mad raving of the 
hereties concerning the sacred books. There were others also, who 
either rejected altogether certain books and parts of books of the 
new Testament, or else allowed them no great authority, whom it is 
not necessary to enumerate: for we must not spend too much time in 
recording or refuting such persons. But the Sechwenkfeldtians! and 
Libertines, proceeding to a still greater length in their wickedness, 
despise the whole scripture, and insult it with many reproaches, 
holding that we should attend not to what the scriptures speak, 
but to what the Spirit utters and teaches us internally. Of these, 
Hosius Polonus writes thus, in his book concerning the express 
word of God: * We will dismiss the scriptures, and rather listen 
to God speaking to us, than return to those beggarly elements. 
One is not required to be learned in the law and scriptures, but to 
be taught of God.  Vain is the labour which is expended upon 
scripture: for the scripture is a creature and a beggarly sort of 
element?" Many passages of scripture condemn this monstrous 
heresy. Christ says: ‘Search the scriptures.” Paul says: 
“‘ Whatsoever things were written of old time were written for our 
learning." Rom. xv. 4. And elsewhere: “All scripture is given 
by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for correction, 
for reproof, and for instruction in righteousness.” 2 Tim. ii. 16. 
There are innumerable such testimonies, by which the authority of 
the scriptures is fully proved, and the blasphemy of these men 
refuted; against which our divines have also written many ex- 
cellent discourses. | 

At the same time that we justly condemn the heresies which 
I have mentioned, we cannot but wholly disapprove the opinion of 
those, who think that the sacred writers have, in some places, fallen 


[1 So called from Gaspar Schwenckfeldt, a Silesian knight, and counsellor 
to the Duke of Lignitz, who died in 1561. See an account of him in Mos- 
heim, Cent. xvi. Sect. mr. part m. c. 1, $$ 23, 24.] 

[? Nos...ipsas scripturas...facessere jubebimus, et Deum loquentem 
potius audiemus,... quam ad egena ista elementa nos convertamus. . .. Non 
oportet legis et scripturee peritum esse, sed a Deo doctum. Vanus est labor 
qui scripturee impenditur: scriptura enim creatura est, et egenum quoddam 
elementum.— Hos. Op. Col. 1584. De express. Dei Verbo. Tom. 1. p. 624.] 


m. | | QUESTION THE FIRST, 37 


into mistakes. That some of the ancients were of this opinion 
appears from the testimony of Augustine, who maintains, in oppo- 
sition to them’, “ that the evangelists are free from all falsehood, 
both from that which proceeds from deliberate deceit, and that 
which is the result of forgetfulness.” (De Cons, Ev. Lib. rr. c. 12.) 
Consequently, Jerome judged wrong, if he really judged, as Erasmus 
supposes‘, “that the evangelists might have fallen into an error of 
memory." Erasmus himself, indeed, determines that it is neither 
impious nor absurd to think so ; and allows it possible that Matthew, 
for instance, in that place of his 27th chapter, may have put the 
name of Jeremiah instead of Zechariah. Upon which place Erasmus 
writes thus: ** But although this were a slip of memory merely in 
the name, I do not suppose that one ought to be so over-scrupulous 
as that the authority of the whole scripture should seem invalidated 
on that account®.” But it does not become us to be so easy and 
indulgent as to concede that such a lapse could be incident to the 
sacred writers. They wrote as they were moved by the Holy 
Ghost, as Peter tells us, 2 Pet. i. 21. And all scripture is inspired 
of God, as Paul expressly writes, 2 Tim. ii. 16. Whereas, there- 
fore, no one may say that any infirmity could befall the Holy 
Spirit, it follows that the sacred writers could not be deceived, or 
err, in any respect. Here, then, it becomes us to be so scrupulous 
as not to allow that any such slip can be found in scripture. For, 
whatever Erasmus may think, it is a solid answer which Augustine 
gives to Jerome: “If any, even the smallest, lie be admitted in 
the scriptures, the whole authority of scripture is presently inva- 
lidated and destroyed." That form which the prophets use so 


[? Omnem autem falsitatem abesse ab Evangelistis decet, non solum eam 
que mentiendo promitur, sed etiam eam quse obliviscendo.—Aug. Opp. T. m1. 
P1. 1910. 8.4 

[* Erasmus (loc. infra citat.) gives Jerome's own words from his epistle 
de optimo genere interpretandi: Accusent Apostolum falsitatis, quod nec cum 
Hebraico nec cum Septuaginta congruat translatoribus, et, quod his majus 
est, erret in nomine: pro Zacharia quippe Hieremiam posuit. Sed absit hoc 
de pedissequo Christi dicere, cui curz fuit non verba et syllabas aucupari, 
sed sententias dogmatum ponere.—Epist. ci. T. rr. p. 334. Antv. 1579.] 

[5 Ceterum etiamsi fuisset in nomine duntaxat memoriz lapsus, non opi- 
nor quemquam adeo morosum esse oporteret, ut ob eam causam totius scrip- 
turc sacree labasceret auctoritas.—Erasm. Annot. p. 107. Froben. Basil. 1535. ] 

[6 Si mendacium aliquod in scripturis vel levissimum admittatur, scrip- 
tur: auctoritatem omnem mox labefactari ac convelli. —'This is the quotation 
as given by Whitaker in his text. The following is probably the passage 


» 


98 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ou. 


often, ** Thus saith the Lord,” is to be attributed also to the apostles 
and evangelists. For the Holy Spirit dictated to them whatever 
things they wrote; whose grace (as Ambrose writes, Lib. rr. in Luc.) 
* knows nothing of slow struggles! Hence neither can that be 
tolerated which Melchior Canus has alleged, (Lib. rr. c. 18. ad 6) 
in explanation of a certain difficulty in the Acts of the Apostles, 
chap. vii. 16; where Stephen says, that Abraham bought a se- 
pulchre from the sons of Emmor, whereas Moses relates that the 
sepulehre was purchased by Jacob, not by Abraham. Canus thinks 
that Stephen might have made a mistake in relating so long a 
history, but that Luke committed no error, since he faithfully re- 
corded what Stephen said?. But that answer draws the knot tighter, 
instead of loosing it: for Stephen was not only full of the Holy 
Ghost, but is even said to have spoken by the Holy Ghost. Acts 
vi. 10. Stephen, therefore, could no more have mistaken than 
Luke; because the Holy Ghost was the same in Luke and in 
Stephen, and had no less force in the one than in the other.  De- 
sides, if we concede that Stephen mistook or was deceived, I do not 
see how he can excuse Luke for not rectifying the error. Therefore 
we must maintain intact the authority of scripture in such a sense 
as not to allow that anything is therein delivered otherwise than the 
most perfect truth required. Wherefore I cannot understand with 
what degree of prudence and consideration Jerome can have written 
that, which he says is to be noted, in his Questions upon Genesis : 
* Wherever the apostles or apostolical men speak to the people, 
they generally use those testimonies which had gotten into common 
use amongst the nations?." 


intended: Admisso enim semel in tantum auctoritatis fastigium officioso ali- 
quo mendacio, nulla illorum librorum particula remanebit, &c. Epist. xix. 
Tom. rr. p. 14.] 

{1 Nescit tarda molimina Sancti Spiritus gratia. c. xix. Ambros. Opp. 
T. v. p. 46. Paris. 1838.] 

[2 Stephano id quod vulgo solet accidisse, ut in longa videlicet narratione, 
eademque prsesertim subita, confuderit nonnulla et miscuerit, in quibusdam 
etiam memoria lapsus fuerit;.... Lucas vero, historie veritatem retinere 
volens, ne iota quidem immutavit, sed rem ut a Stephano narrata erat ex- 
posuit.—Melch. Cani Loc. Theolog. fol. 89. 2. Colon. Agripp. 1585.] 

[? Ubieunque Sancti Apostoli aut Apostolici viri loquuntur ad populos, 
iis plerumque testimoniis abutuntur, que jam fuerant in gentibus divulgata. 
—Hieron. Quest. Hebr. in Genes. T. m1. p. 468.] 





Iv. | | QUESTION THE FIRST. 39 


CHAPTER IV. 


WHEREIN THE ARGUMENT OF THE ADVERSARIES IS PROPOSED 
AND CONFUTED. 


HaviNa now premised a brief explanation of these matters, we 
will come to the discussion of the cause and question proposed. And 
first, we shall have to treat of the six entire books, Tobit, Judith, 
Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the two books of Maccabees, all together; 
and then, of those several books taken separately, as likewise of 
those fragments and parts of books, Esther, Baruch, &c. 

Our adversaries have but one argument in behalf of these 
books, which is derived from the authority of certain councils and 
fathers. They allege, in the first place, the third council of Carthage, 
(in which Augustine himself bore a part,) can. 47*, wherein all 
these books are counted canonical. Should any one object, that 
this council was only provincial, not general, and that its judgment 
is, therefore, of less consequence; our antagonists proceed to shew, 
that this council was confirmed by pope Leo IV. (Dist. 20. C. de 
libellis), and also in the sixth general council held at Constantinople, 
which is called Trullan, can. 2. Hence they argue, that although 
the decree of the council of Carthage might not, perhaps, be strong 
enough of itself to prove this point, yet, since it 1s confirmed by 
the authority of this pope and of a general council, it hath in it as 
much efficacy as is required to be in any council. Besides, they 
adduce the council of Florence under Eugenius IV. (in Epistol. 
ad Armenos), that of Trent under Paul III. (sess. 4), and pope 
Gelasius with a council of seventy bishops’. Of fathers, they cite 
Innocent I., who was also a pope, in his third Epistle to Exuperius 
of Tholouse; Augustine, Lib. n. c. 8. De Doctrina Christiana; 
Isidore of Seville, Etymolog., Lib. vr. c. 1. So that the argument 
of our opponents runs thus: these councils and these fathers affirm 
these books to belong to the sacred canon; therefore, these books 
are canonical In order to make this argument valid, we must 
take as our medium this proposition : whatsoever these councils and 
these fathers determine is to be received without dispute. We may 
then add to it, But these councils and these fathers receive these 
books as canonical; therefore these books are truly canonical and 


[4 Mansi, Collect. Concil. Tom. zr. p. 891.] 
[5 Vide infra, or in Mansi, T. vir. p. 146.] 


40 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


divine: otherwise there will be no consequence in the reasoning. 
Now let us answer somewhat more clearly and distinctly. 

In the first place, we deny the major proposition of this syl- 
logism. We must not concede that whatever those councils 
determine, and whatever those fathers affirm, is always true: for it 
is the special prerogative of scripture, that it never errs. There- 
fore, it is manifest that nothing can be concluded from these testi- 
monies which hath the force of a certain and necessary argument. 

In the second place, the council of Florence was held one hun- 
dred and fifty years ago, and the council of Trent in our own times, 
and this latter for the express purpose and design of establishing all 
the errors of the popish church. These both were no legitimate 
councils of christian men, but tyrannous conventicles of antichrist, 
held for the object of opposing the truth of the gospel. How ge- 
neral that of Trent was, in its fourth session, may be appreciated 
from the number of the bishops who were present in that session. 
The legates, cardinals, archbishops, and bishops, who were then 
present, and who published this decree concerning the number of 
the canonical books, made in all about fifty; and those, almost to 
a man, Italians and Spaniards. Where the attendance was so thin, 
it was impossible that any general council could be held. Yet Ala- 
nus Copus (in Dialog. Quint. c. 16.) says, that there were fewer 
bishops in many famous councils than at Trent!. I allow this to be 
true of provincial synods; but no ccumenie council can be named, 
in which there was such a paucity and penury of prelates. These 
two councils, therefore, are to be wholly set aside from the dispute. 

Thirdly, the council of Carthage was merely provincial and 
composed of a few bishops; and therefore hath no authority suf- 
ficiently strong and clear for confirming the point in question. 
Besides, our adversaries themselves do not receive all the decrees 
of this council. For the papists vehemently and contemptuously 
blame the injunction most solemnly expressed in can. 26?, that 
‘the bishop of the chief see shall not be called high priest, or chief 
of the priests, or by any such title." They cannot then bind us 
by an authority to which they refuse to be tied themselves. 

But, they say, this Carthaginian synod was approved by the 


[! Sed nullam isti habent causam paucitatem istam contemnendi, cum 
rariore numero multa preeclara concilia sint habita.— Alan. Cop. Dialogi v1. 
Dial. v. c. 16. p. 487. Antv. 1573.] | 

[? Ne prim: sedis episcopus appelletur Summus Sacerdos, aut Princeps 
sacerdotum, aut ejusmodi aliquid. Labb. Concil. T. m. p. 1176.] 


IV. | | QUESTION THE FIRST. 41 


Trullan council of Constantinople, which was universal. Be it so. 
But, if this decree of the number of the canonical books was legi- 
timately approved, then that also concerning the title of high priest 
was confirmed by the same sanction, which yet they will by no 
means concede. How, then, will they divide these things? I ac- 
knowledge, indeed, that this Trullan synod? was ecumenical. But 
the papists themselves doubt what should be determined of the 
authority of the canons which are attributed to this council. Pig- 
hius, in a treatise which he wrote upon this subject, calls the acts 
of this council spurious, and by no means genuine ; which he seeks 
to prove by some arguments. Melchior Canus too (Lib. v. cap. ult.) 
declares that the canons of that council have no ecclesiastical au- 
thority : which is also the opinion of others. For there are some 
things in those canons which the papists can by no means approve ; 
namely, that the bishop of Constantinople is equalled with the 
Roman, can. 36; that priests and deacons are not to be separated 
from their wives, can. 13; that the law of fasting is imposed on 
the Roman church, can. 55; and others of the same kind. There 
is one rule, also, which truth itself disapproves; that which forbids 
the eating of blood and things strangled, can. 67. It is, besides, 
a strong objection to the credit and authority of these canons, that 
eighty-five canons of the apostles are approved and received in 
them, can. 2. For pope Gelasius (in Gratian, Dist. 15. C. 
Romana Ecclesia) declares the book of the apostolic canons apo- 
eryphal*. And Gratian (Dist. 165) says, that there are only fifty 


(3 Called Quini-sext from serving as a kind of supplement to the fifth and 
sixth general councils, with the latter of which it is, as here by Whitaker, 
commonly confounded. It was held in 691, and its claims to the character 
of an cecumenical Synod are generally denied by the Romanists; though 
principally, as it would appear, because its canons are repugnant to their 
system. See the article in Cave's Historia Literaria, Concil. Constant. 1v. 
anno 691.] 

[* Liber Canonum Apostolorum apocryphus: which clause is wanting in 
Justellus’ and two other MSS. The genuineness of this decree, which has 
been strongly impeached, is very learnedly defended by Mr Gibbings, in his 
Roman Forgeries, p. 93, et seq. To his authorities from Isidore of Seville 
(p. 94) he may add another produced by Hody, p. 653, col. 70.] 

[5 Isidorus scribit dicens, canones qui dicuntur apostolorum, seu quia eos- 
dem nec sedes apostolica recepit, nec sancti Patres illis assensum preebue- 
runt, pro eo quod ab heereticis sub nomine apostolorum compositi dignos- 
cuntur, quamvis in eis utilia inveniantur, tamen....... eorum gesta inter 
apocrypha deputata. Dist. xvi. c. 1.] 


42 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ CH. 


canons of the apostles, and they apocryphal, upon the authority of 
Isidore, who hath related that they were composed by heretics 
under the name of the apostles. But this synod receives and con- 
firms eighty-five canons of the apostles; whereas pope Zephyrinus, 
who was five hundred years older than that synod, recognises, as 
appears in Gratian!, no more than sixty. Pope Leo IX?, who 
was three hundred and fifty years later than the synod, receives 
the same number exactly, as Gratian writes in the place just cited. 
The thing itself, indeed, shews that the canons ascribed to the 
apostles are spurious. For in the last canon the gospel of John is 
enumerated amongst the scriptures of the new Testament; which 
all agree to have been written when all or most of the apostles 
were dead. Yet they affirm that these canons were not collected by 
others, but published by the assembled apostles themselves. Thus 
Peiresius determines in the third part of his book concerning tra- 
ditions?; and so others. For, can. 28, Peter himself says, ** Let 
him be removed from communion, as Simon Magus was by me 
Peter*. If this canon, therefore, be true, Peter was present at the 
framing of it. But how could Peter, who was put to death in the 
time of Nero, have seen the gospel of John, which was first written 
and published in the time of Domitian? For the figment which 
some pretend, that Peter and the rest foresaw that gospel which 
John was afterward to write, is merely ridiculous. So in the last 
chapter all the apostles are made to speak, and the phrase occurs 
“the Acts of us the Apostles5." 

It is no less easy to refute the answer which others make, that 
Clemens published these apostolic canons. For how could Clemens, 


[1 Ibid, c. 2.] | 

[? Ibid, c. 3. The words are really Cardinal Humbert's, taken from his 
Reply to Nicetas. See Canisius, Antiq. Lect. T. vi. p. 181. Gratian takes 
the liberty of attributing them to Leo, on the principle, that the words of the 
Legate are the words of his employer.] 

[3 Peiresius Aiala, De Divinis, Apostolicis, atque ecclesiasticis Traditio- 
nibus. Paris. 1550.] 

[4 exxomrécO@ mavrámaci kai Ths koweviías, bs Sipov 6 Máyos in’ [éeuod] 
Iérpov. It is numbered 29 by Beveridge, and 30 by Whiston. The word in 
brackets is omitted by Dionysius Exiguus, for obvious reasons. ] 

[5 kai ai mpdkes nov rà» ámoeróAev. Beveridge here pronounces the 
word zuàv to be an interpolation; but, as it seems, without any sufficient 
grounds for such an opinion. ] 


IV. | . QUESTION THE FIRST. 43 


whom Damasus? and Onuphrius’ testify to have died in the time 
of Vespasian, have seen the gospel of John, which he wrote after 
his return from Patmos, during the reign of Trajan? For almost 
all authors say very plainly, that the gospel was written by John 
after his exile. So Dorotheus in the Life of John, the Prologue to 
John, Simeon Metaphrastes, Isidorus in his book of the parts of the 
new Testament, Gregory of Tours (Glor. Plurim. Mart. c. 30.), 
Huimo (Lib. m. de rerum Christianarum Memorabil.), Alcuin upon 
John, and innumerable other writers of great authority. 

But the matter is clear enough of itself. For these canons of 
the apostles approve the constitutions of Clement and his two 
epistles. Yet the council of Constantinople, which hath received 
the canons of the apostles, condemns the constitutions of Clemens’, 
as, indeed, many others do also; concerning which book we shall 
speak hereafter. Besides, these canons of the apostles damage the 
papal cause: for they set down three books of Maccabees®, and 
omit Tobit and Judith’, and direct young persons to be instructed 
in the Wisdom of Sirach!!, and make no mention of the Wisdom of 
Solomon. If these are the true and genuine canons of the apostles, 
then the papists are refuted in their opinion of the number of the 
canonical books of the old and new Testaments by the authority of 
the canons of the apostles, If they be not, as it is plain they are 
not, then the synod of Constantinople erred, when it approved them 
as apostolical. Yet these men deny that a general council can err 
in its decrees respecting matters of faith. Let the papists see how 
they will answer this. Certainly this Trullan synod approved the 
canons of the council of Carthage no otherwise than it approved the 
canons of the apostles. But it is manifest, and the papists themselves 
will not deny, that the canons of the apostles are not to be ap- - 
proved. Hence we may judge what force and authority is to be 


[ i.e. The Liber Pontificalis, which goes under his name: see the article 
Damasus (anno 366) in Cave's H. L. and Pearson, de success. prim. Episc. 
Rom. Diss. 1. c. 4. $ 4—6.] 

[7 Annotat. in Platinam. p. 13. Colon. Ilb. 1600.] 

[3 Canon. 11. Beveridge, Pandect:z, Can. 1. 158.] 

[9 MakkaBaiwy vpía. C.85. But Cosin (pp. 30—1) endeavours to shew that 
the canon in its original state made no mention of any books of Maccabees. 
Cf. Gibbing's Roman Forgeries, p. 114.] 

[19 Cotelerius, however, found one MS. with the clause 'Iov0eiÓ &v, which, 
of course, he was glad enough to have any authority for inserting.] 

[!! navOávew tua rods véovs àv copiay rod moAvpabods Sipdy. Can. LXXXY.] 


44 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


allowed to the canons of this council of Constantinople; and what 
sort of persons the papists are to deal with, who both deny that 
these canons have any legitimate authority, and yet confirm the 
sentence of the council of Carthage by the authority of these very 
canons, For so Canus (Lib. rr. cap. 9) proves that the authority 
of the council of Carthage, in enumerating these books, is not to be 
despised, because it was approved by the general Trullan synod; 
yet the same man elsewhere (Lib. v. cap. 6. ad argument. 6.) 
makes light of the authority of these canons, and brings many 
arguments to break it down. 

Fourthly, Gelasius with his council of seventy bishops recites 
but one book of Maccabees!, and one of Esdras. Thus he rejected 
the second book of Maccabees, which is apocryphal, and Nehemiah, 
which is truly canonical. Isidore, too?, confesses that there are 
but two and twenty books found in the Hebrew canon: and that 
their canon is the true one will be proved hereafter. 

Lastly, before they can press us with the authority of councils, 
they should themselves determine whether it is at all in the power 
of any council to determine what book is to be received as canoni- 
cal. For this is doubted amongst the papists, as Canus confesses, 
Lib. m. c. 8 

Let us come now to the minor premiss of the proposed syl- 
logism. We allow that the council of Carthage, and Gelasius 
with his seventy bishops, and Innocent, and Augustine, and Isi- 
dore call these books canonical. But the question is, in what 
sense they called them canonical. Now, we deny that their mean- 
ing was to make these books, of which we now speak, of equal autho- 
rity with those which are canonical in the strict sense; and the 
truth of this we will prove from antiquity, from Augustine, and 
from the papists themselves. 

For, in the first place, if it had been decreed by any public 
judgment of the whole Church, or defined in a general council, 
that these books were to be referred to the true and genuine 
canon of the sacred books, then those who lived in the Church 
after the passing of that sentence and law would by no means have 
dissented from it, or determined otherwise. But they did dissent, 
and that in great numbers; and amongst them some of those 
whom the Church of Rome acknowledges as her own children. 


[1 In Dominica prima mensis Septembris ponunt librum Machabzeorum : 
where, however, Ivo reads libros. Decret, P. 1. Dist. xv. c. 3.] 
[? Offic. r. 12.] 


IV. | . QUESTION THE FIRST. 45 


Therefore, there was no such judgment of the Church publicly 
received. 

Secondly, Augustine, in that same place, plainly indicates that 
he did not consider those books of equal authority with the rest. 
For he distinguishes all the books into two classes; some which 
were received by all the churches, and some which were not. 
Then he lays down and prescribes two rules: one, that the 
books which all the churches receive should be preferred to those 
which some do not receive; the other, that those books which 
are received by the greater and more noble churches should be pre- 
ferred to those which are taken into the canon by churches fewer 
in number and of less authority. It will be best to listen to Augus- 
tne himself, whose words are these (Lib. rm. c. 8. de Doct. 
Christ.)?: * Now, with respect to the canonical scriptures, let him 
follow the authority of the greater number of catholie churches ; 
amongst which those indeed are to be found which merited to pos- 
sess the chairs of the apostles, and to receive epistles from them. 
He will hold this, therefore, as a rule in dealing with the canonical 
scriptures, to prefer those which are received by all catholic churches 
to those which only some receive. But, with respect to those 
which are not received by all, he will prefer such as the more 
and more dignified churches receive, to such as are held by fewer 
churches, or churches of less authority." ^ Then follows immedi- 
ately, * Now the whole canon of scripture, in which we say that 
this consideration hath place," &c. 

Hence, then, I draw an easy and ready answer. We, with 
Jerome and many other fathers, deny these books to be canonical. 
Augustine, with some others, calls them canonical. Do, then, these 
fathers differ so widely in opinion? By no means. For Jerome 
takes this word “canonical” in one sense, while Augustine, Innocent, 
and the fathers of Carthage understand it in another. Jerome calls 
only those books canonical, which the church always held for 


[3 In canonicis autem scripturis ecclesiarum catholicarum quam pluri- 
mum auctoritatem sequatur; inter quas sane ill: sint, quee apostolicas sedes 
habere et epistolas accipere meruerunt.  Tenebit igitur hune modum in 
scripturis canonicis, ut eas, que ab omnibus accipiuntur ecclesiis catholicis, 
preeponat eis quas queedam non accipiunt; in eis vero que non accipiuntur 
ab omnibus, preeponat eas quas plures gravioresque accipiunt eis quas pau- 
ciores minorisque auctoritatis ecclesia tenent... .. . Totus autem canon 
scripturarum, in quo istam considerationem versandam dicimus, &c. Aug. 
Opp. T. ur. c. 47,48. A.B.] 


46 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


canonical; the rest he banishes from the canon, denies to be ca- 
nonical, and calls apocryphal. But Augustine calls those canon- 
ical which, although they had not the same perfect and certain 
authority as the rest, were wont to be read in the church for the 
edification of the people. Augustine, therefore, takes this name 
in a larger sense than Jerome. But, that Augustine was not so 
minded as to judge the authority of all these books to be equal, is 
manifest from the circumstance that he admonishes the student of 
theology to place a certain difference between the several books, 
to distinguish them into classes, and to prefer some to others. If 
his judgment of them all was the same, as the papists contend, 
such an admonition ’and direction must appear entirely superflu- 
ous. Would Augustine, if he held all the books to have an equal 
right to canonicity, have made such a distribution of the books ? 
Would he have preferred some to others? Would he not have 
said that they were all to be received alike? But now, Augustine 
does prefer some to others, and prescribes to all such a fule for 
judging as we have seen. Therefore Augustine did not think that 
they were all of the same account, credit, and authority ; and, con- 
sequently, is in open opposition to the papists. All this is manifest. 
It makes to the same purpose, that this same Augustine (de Civit. 
Dei, Lib. xvir. e. 20.) concedes, that less reliance should be placed 
upon whatever is not found in the canon of the Jews!. Whence it 
may be collected that, when Augustine observed that some books 
were not received by all, or the greatest and most noble churches, 
his remark is to be understood of those books which are not con- 
tained in the Hebrew canon: and such are those which our churches 
exclude from the sacred canon. 

Let it be noted too, that in the council of Carthage, and in the 
epistle of pope Innocent, five books of Solomon are enumerated ; 
whereas it is certain that only three are Solomon’s. So, indeed, 
Augustine himself once thought that the book of Wisdom and 
Ecclesiasticus were Solomon’s, though he afterwards changed (but 
without correcting) that opinion. For in the same place of his 
City of God he thus speaks of those books: ** Learned men have 
no doubt that they are not Solomon’s*.” This was one error in 
Augustine. Another, and no less one, was supposing that the 
book of Wisdom was written by Jesus the son of Sirach (de 


[1 Sed adversus contradictores non tanta firmitate proferuntur que 
scripta non sunt in canone Judzorum.-—Aug. Opp. T. vit. 766. 4.] 
[? Non autem esse ipsius, non dubitant doctiores, —Uhbi supra, 765.] 


Iv. | | QUESTION THE FIRST. 47 


Doct. Christ. Lib. 1r. c. 8.); which error he retracts, Retract. Lib. 
m. ce 4.3 Yet he allegeth an excuse, which is neither unhandsome 
nor trifling, for attributing five books to Solomon; that “these 
books may be all called Solomon’s, from a certain likeness which 
they bear.” Hence, however, it appears that Augustine was in 
a great mistake when he thought, first, that these two books were 
written by Solomon, and then, that they were written by Jesus 
the son of Sirach. Indeed, Augustine himself testifies that these 
books were by no means received in all churches (De Civit. Dei. 
Lib. xvi. e. 20.); where he says that these books were especially 
received as authoritative* by the Western church. To this Wes- 
tern church Augustine and Innocent belonged. For the oriental 
church never allowed to these books such great authority. But 
the mistake of counting Wisdom and Kcclesiasticus amongst the 
books of Solomon, although it is a very gross one, was yet, as 
we read, entertained and received by many. For pope Mar- 
cellinus, in an epistle to Solomon, adduces a testimony from Ec- 
clesiasticus, as from Solomon; and likewise pope Sixtus II. in 
an epistle to Gratus: which shews sufficiently that these persons 
must have thought that Solomon was the author of this book. I 
know, indeed, that these epistles were not really written by Mar- 
celinus or Sixtus, but are falsely attributed to them: yet still, 
by whomsoever written, they indicate that this opinion was a com- 
mon error. 

Thirdly, the papists themselves understand and interpret 
Augustine and the rest in the same manner as we do. For so 
many persons after Augustine and after those councils would 
never have denied these books to be canonical, if they had not 
perceived the reasonableness of this interpretation, If then they 
blame our judgment, let them at least lend some credit to their 
own companions and masters. I will bring forward no man of 
light esteem, no mean or obscure doctor, but a distinguished car- 
dinal,—that special pillar of the popish church, Cajetan, who as- 
suredly excelled all our Jesuits in judgment, erudition, and 


[3 In secundo sane libro (de Doc. Christ.) de auctore libri, quem plures 
vocant Sapientiam Salomonis, quod etiam ipsum, sicut Ecclesiasticum, Jesus 
Sirach scripserit, non ita constare sicut a me dictum est postea didici, et 
omnino probabilius comperi non esse hune ejus libri auctorem. Ib. T. r. 
86, 87. D. A.] 

[* Eos tamen in auctoritatem maxime occidentalis antiquitus recepit ec- 
clesia. Ut supra, 765.] 


48 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


authority. I will recite his words, because they are express and 
should always be in remembrance. Thus, therefore, writes Caje- 
tan at the end of his commentary upon the History of the old 
Testament: * Here," says he, ** we close our commentaries on the 
historical books of the old Testament. For the rest (that is, 
Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maecabees) are counted by St 
Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the 
Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from 
the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, 
if thou shouldest find any where, either in the sacred councils or 
the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For 
the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to 
the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the 
epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and 
any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, 
that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of 
faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature 
of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and 
authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the 
help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through 
that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial 
council of Carthage!.” Thus far Cajetan; in whose words we 
should remark two things. . First, that all the statements of coun- 
cils and doctors are to be subjected to the correction of Jerome. 
But Jerome always placed these books in the apocrypha. Secondly, 
that they are called canonical by some councils and Fathers, and 
customarily received in the canon of the bible, because they pro- 
pose a certain rule of morals. There are, therefore, two kinds 


[| Hoe in loco terminamus commentaria librorum historialium veteris 
Testamenti. Nam reliqui (videlicet Judith, TTobiz, et Machabzorum libri) a 
Divo Hieronymo extra Canonicos libros supputantur, et inter Apocrypha 
locantur cum Sapientia et Ecclesiastico, ut patet in prologo Galeato. Nec 
turberis novitie, si alicubi reperies libros istos inter canonicos supputari, vel 
in sacris Conciliis vel in sacris Doctoribus. Nam ad Hieronymi limam redu- 
cenda sunt tam verba Conciliorum quam Doctorum, et juxta illius sententiam 
ad Chromatium et Heliodorum episcopos libri isti (et si qui alii sunt in Ca- 
none Bibliz similes) non sunt canonici, id est, non sunt regulares ad firman- 
dum ea quee sunt fidei: possunt tamen dici canonici, id est regulares ad edi- 
ficationem fidelium, utpote in Canone Bibliz ad hoc recepti et auctorati. 
. Cum hac distinctione discernere poteris dicta Augustini, et scripta in Pro- 
vinciali Concilio Carthaginensi. In ult. C. Esther, ad fin.] 


IV. | QUESTION THE FIRST. 49 


of canonical books: for some contain the rule both of morals 
and of faith; and these are, and are called, truly and properly 
canonical: from others no rule, but only of morals, should be 
sought, And these, although they are improperly called canonical, 
are in truth apocryphal, because weak and unfit for the confirma- 
tion of faith. We may use, if we please, the same distinction 
which I perceive some papists themselves to have used, as Sixtus 
Senensis (Bibliothec, Lib. 1.), and Stapleton (Princip. Fid. Doctrin. 
Lib. 1x. e. 6), who call some books Proto-canonical, and others 
Deutero-canonical. The proto-canonical are those which are counted 
in the legitimate and genuine canon, i.e. of the Hebrews. These 
Jerome's accurate judgment hath approved; these our churches 
acknowledge as truly canonical. The Deutero-canonical are they 
which, although they be sometimes called canonical in the sense 
just now explained, are yet in reality apocryphal, because they do 
not contain the combined rule of faith and morals? The papists 
are greatly incensed against their partner Cajetan, on account of 
this most solid sentence; and some even vituperate him. Canus 
says, that he was deceived by the novelties of Erasmus. Let us 
leave them to fight with their own men. This is certain, that 
there never was a papist of more learning and authority than 
Cajetan, whom the pope sent into Germany to oppose Luther. This 
testimony should be a weighty one against them. Let them shake 
it off as they best can: and yet they never can shake it off, since 
it is confirmed by solid reason. 

Thus we have seen how weak their argument is. They have none 
better: for they have none other. Now, since we have answered 
them, we will proceed to the confirmation of our own cause. 





CHAPTER V. 


WHEREIN REASONS ARE ALLEGED AGAINST THE BOOKS OF THE 
SECOND KIND. 


I rorm the first argument thus: These books, concerning which 
we contend, were not written by prophets: therefore they are 
not canonical. The entire syllogism is this. All canonical books 
of the old Testament were written by prophets: none of these 


[2 A difference of authority is owned also by Lamy. App. Bibl. L. rr. c. 5. 
p. 333. Lugd. 1723; and Jahn, Einleitung ind. A. T. Vol. 1. p. 141.] 


[ WHITAKER. | : 


50 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cm. 


books was written by any prophet: therefore none of these books 
is canonical. The parts of this syllogism must be confirmed. 

The major rests upon plain testimonies of scripture. Peter calls 
the scripture of the old Testament, * The prophetic word,” 2 Pet.1.19, 
(for it is evident from Luke iii. 4, that Xo-yos means scripture,) 
and “prophecy,” ibid. ver. 20. Paul calls it, “the scriptures of 
the prophets.” Rom. xvi. 26. Zacharias the priest says, * As he 
spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since 
the world began." Luke i. 70. Where he means that God had 
spoken in the prophetic scriptures. So Abraham says to the 
luxurious man, * They have Moses and the prophets,” that is, the 
books of scripture. Luke xvii. 39. And elsewhere Luke says: 
“Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto 
them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” Luke 
xxiv. 27; so Rom. i. 2. Here we see that all the scriptures are © 
found in the books of Moses and the prophets. The apostle to 
the Hebrews says: “God spake in divers manners by the pro- 
phets.” Heb. i. 1. Therefore the prophets were all those by whom 
God spake to His people. And to this refers also the assertion of 
the apostle, that the Church is built “upon the foundation of the 
apostles and prophets.” Eph. i. 20. This foundation denotes the 
doctrine of the scriptures, promulgated by the prophets and apos- 
tles. Christ says: “ All things must be fulfilled which are written 
in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, con- 
cerning me:" and then follows immediately, * Then opened he 
their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.” 
Luke xxiv. 44, 45. Paul asks king Agrippa, * Believest thou the 
prophets ?”—that is, the scriptures. Acts xxvi. 27. And when 
he dealt with the Jews at Rome, he tried to convince them “ out 
of the law of Moses and the prophets.” Acts xxviii. 23. 

From these testimonies we collect that the assertion in the 
major is most true ;—that the whole scripture of the old Testa- 
ment was written and promulgated by prophets. And there are 
many other similar passages from which it may be concluded, that 
there is no part of the old Testament which did not proceed from 
some prophet. But we must remark, that the entire old canonical 
scripture is sometimes signified by the name of the prophets, some- 
times of Moses and the prophets, sometimes of Moses, the prophets, 
and the Psalms. So Augustine, in his discourse against Cresconius 
the grammarian: * Not without cause was the canon of the church 
framed with so salutary a vigilance, that certain books of the pro- 


vol QUESTION THE FIRST. 51 


phets and apostles should belong to it!" Lib. m. cap. 31. And in 
another place: * Let them shew us their church, not in the rumours 
of the Africans, but in the injunction of the law, in the predictions 
of the prophets, in the songs of the Psalms; that is, in all the 
canonical authorities of the sacred books? De Unit. Eccles. c. 16. 
And elsewhere: * Read this in the law, in the prophets, in the 
Psalms?," We have said enough in confirmation of the major; let 
us now proceed to the minor. 

That these books, against which we are disputing, were not 
written, or set forth to the church, by prophets, is exceedingly 
clear and certain. For, in the first place, all confess that Malachi 
was the last prophet of the Jews, between whom and John the 
Baptist no prophet whatever intervened. But most of the authors 
of these books undoubtedly lived after Malachi. This is manifest 
in the case of the writers of Ecclesiasticus and the Maccabees; and 
even our adversaries themselves are not able to deny it. Besides, 
those books were not written in the prophetie tongue, which was 
the language of Canaan and the proper language of the church. 
But if prophets, who were the teachers and masters of the Israel- 
itish church, had written those books, they would have used, in 
writing them, their native and prophetie language, not a language 
foreign and unknown to the church ; which no right-minded person 
will deny. Now that most of them were written not in Hebrew 
but in Greek, the Fathers affirm, and the papists concede, and the 
thing itself proves fully: concerning the rest, we shall see in the 
sequel. Finally, if these books had been written by prophets, then 
Christ would have used them as his witnesses. But neither Christ 
nor his apostles ever made any use of their testimony. This is 
what Augustine says of the books of Maccabees: * The Jews do 
not esteem this scripture as the Law and the Prophets, to which the 
Lord bears testimony as his witnesses.” (Contra Gaudent. Epist. 


[! Neque enim sine causa tam salubri vigilantia canon ecclesiasticus con- 
stitutus est, ad quem certi prophetarum et apostolorum libri pertineant. 
Aug. Opp. T. 1x. 668, 669. n. 4.] 

[? Ecclesiam suam demonstrent, si possunt, non in sermonibus et rumori- 
bus Afrorum, non in conciliis episcoporum suorum,...sed in preescripto 
Legis, in Prophetarum preedictis, in Psalmorum cantibus... hoc est, in omni- 
bus canonicis sanctorum librorum auctoritatibus. Ibid. 585. a.] 

[3 Lege hoc mihi de Propheta, lege de Psalmo, recita de Lege. August. 
de Pastoribus, c. 14.] 

[* Et hane quidem scripturam, que appellatur Machabeeorum, non habent 

4—2 


52 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ on. 


Lib. 1. eap. 23.) Christ bears no testimony to these books as his 
witnesses. Therefore they are not sufficient or fully credible wit- 
nesses of Christ. But this they would be if they were prophetic. 
For all the canonical and prophetic scriptures testify of Christ ; 
and to them as his witnesses Christ bears distinguished testimony, 
when he says, “ Search the scriptures,” and when he cites so many 
testimonies from those books. So Jerome!: * We must have 
recourse to the Hebrews, from whose text both the Lord speaks, 
and his disciples choose their examples.” But that these books 
are not prophetical, we shall hereafter prove still more clearly. 

The second argument. These books were not received by the 
church of the Israelites; therefore they are not canonical. The syl- 
logism may be framed thus: The ancient church of the Hebrews re- 
ceived and approved all the books of the old Testament. That church 
did not receive these books; therefore they are not canonical. 

The major proposition is certain, and may be easily demon- 
strated. For, first, if that church had rejected a part of the Lord’s 
Testament,— especially so large a part,—she would have been 
guilty of the highest crime and sacrilege, and would have been 
charged with it by Christ or his apostles. For, since the Jews 
were blamed for putting wrong senses upon the scripture, they 
would never have escaped still greater and sterner reprehension, if 
they had taken away the scripture; forasmuch as it is much more 
wicked and impious to take away books of scripture than to inter- 
pret them ill in certain passages. But neither Christ, nor his 
apostles, nor any others, ever accused the Jews of mutilating or 
tearing to pieces their canon of the sacred books. Nay, the an- 
cient Israelitish church both received all the canonical books, and 
preserved them with the greatest care and faithfulness. On which 
point read what Josephus writes, in Eusebius, Lib. rmm. cap. 10%. 
This is also confirmed by the authority of scripture itself. For 
the apostle says, that to the Jews were committed and delivered in 
charge the oracles of God,—that is, the scriptures. Rom. iii. 2. 
Whence we learn, that the excellent treasure of the sacred scripture 
was deposited by God with the church of the Jews, and by it 
received and guarded: which diligence and fidelity of the Jews, 


Judei sicut Legem et Prophetas et Psalmos, quibus Dominus testimonium 
perhibet ut testibus suis (Lib. r. $. 38.) Aug. Opp. T. rx. 1006. c.] 

[1 Ad Hebreos revertendum, unde et Dominus loquitur, et discipuli ex- 
empla presumunt. Procem. in Paralip.] 

[2 Contra Apion. L. 1. c. 8. Vide infra. ] 


v. | QUESTION THE FIRST. 53 


in preserving the sacred books, Augustine (Ep. 3, and 59.) and all 
the other Fathers celebrate. Besides, if so many canonical books 
had been (not only not received, but) rejected by the ancient 
church of the Jews, it would follow that many canonical books were 
never received by any church: for before Christ there was no 
other church but that of the Jews. If then we grant that that 
church, which was the whole and sole church at that particular 
time, could have rejected canonical books, then it is evident that 
the church may err, which the papists will not be willing to allow. 
Yet is it not a great error, not only not to acknowledge and receive 
sacred books, but to repudiate and eject them from the canon of 
the inspired writings? But the whole Jewish church rejected these 
books: which was our assumption in the minor, and may be con- 
firmed by the confession of all the fathers, and even of the papists 
themselves. For every one understands that these books were 
never received into the Hebrew canon. 

As to Bellarmine’s pretence (Lib. 1. cap. 10), that these books 
have the testimony of the apostolic church, and that the apostles 
declared these books canonical, whence does its truth appear? The 
apostles never cite testimonies from these books, nor can anything 
be adduced to shew that any authority was attributed to them 
by the apostles. Indeed when Cajetan affirmed, in his commen- 
tary on 1 Cor. xi, that only to be sacred and divine scripture 
which the apostles either wrote or approved, he was blamed by 
Catharinus (Annot. Lib. 1.) on that account; and Catharinus lays 
it down in that place, that the church receives certain books as 
canonical which certainly were neither written nor approved by the 
apostles. The allegation of Canus, that these books were neither 
received nor rejected’, is merely ridiculous. For, surely, if the 
Jews did not receive these books, what else was this but rejecting 
them utterly? He who does not receive God rejects him: so 
not to receive the word of God, is to refuse and reject it. ‘ He 
that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with 
me scattereth.” Luke xi. 23. Besides, how could that church 
either receive or rather not reject books written in a foreign tongue ? 

The sum of both arguments is this: These books are not 
written by prophets, nor received by the Israelitish church. There- 
fore they are not canonical. 

The third argument. Certain things may be found in these 


[3 Negamus hos libros a synagoga esse rejectos. Aliud est enim non reci- 
pere, aliud vero rejicere.—Melch. Cani Loc. Theol. Lib. 1. cap. xi. p. 45 a. 
Colon. Agrip. 1585.] 


54 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


books which prove them not to be canonical. This argument is 
very strong, as derived from the nature and genius of the books 
themselves: and the conclusion will appear with fuller evidence in 
the sequel of this discourse, when we come to the particular ex- 
amination of the several books; whence it will be sufficiently mani- 
fest that none of those now called in question have any just claims 
to be considered as canonical. 





CHAPTER VI. 


WHEREIN THE TRUTH OF OUR CAUSE IS ILLUSTRATED BY OTHER 
TESTIMONIES. 


LasTLY, it is clear from the testimonies of councils, fathers and 
writers, that these .books deserve no place in the true canon of 
scripture. Which argument, though it be merely human, yet may 
have force against them who themselves use no other in this cause. 

The synod of Laodicea (c. 59!) forbids the reading of any 
non-canonical books in the church, and allows only * the canonical 
books of the old and new Testament" to be used for that purpose. 
Then those are enumerated as canonical, which our churches re- 
ceive; not Tobit, nor Judith, nor the rest. There is, indeed, a 
clear error in this council. For Baruch is coupled with Jeremiah, 
(which former perhaps they thought to be a part of the latter,) and 
the epistles of the prophet Jeremiah are mentioned?, whereas there 
is but one epistle of Jeremiah in the book of Baruch :—unless, 
perhaps, there may here be a fault in the Greek book, since 
these words are omitted in the Latin. There is another error 
with respect to the Apocalypse, which these fathers have not 
placed in the catalogue of the books of the new Testament. And 
it is certain that many in the church doubted for a long time con- 
cerning that book?. However, in the judgment of those fathers, 

[1 Gre ob Set idtwrixods warpods éyerOar ev TH exednoia, odde dkavóvia Ta 
Bi8Xia, dXAà pdva Ta KavoviKad THs Kawvis kai madatas diabjKns. Mansi, T. rr. 
p. 574.] 

[2 "Iepeuías, Bapody, Ópijvot kai érioroXat. Can. 60. ibid.] 

[? It is to be observed that Canon 60 professes only to give a list of those 
books ca Set dvaywodoxerOa.—i. e. in the Church. Hence Cosin (Hist. of the 
Canon, p. 60.) supposes the Apocalypse to be left out, not as uncanonical, 
but as unfit for popular instruction on account of its mysterious obscurity ; 


for which reason, he observes, it is omitted likewise in the Calendar of Lessons: 
read in the Church of England, though received in our Canon.] 


YI. | | QUESTION THE FIRST. 55 


these books of the old Testament, Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, 
Wisdom, and the two books of Maccabees, are not canonical. We 
form the same judgment of those books. The papists object, that 
the canon of scripture was not then settled; consequently, that 
they might leave these books out of the canon of scripture, but we 
cannot claim a similar right after this canon of scripture hath been 
defined by the church. But this is too ridiculous. For who can, 
without great impudence, maintain that there was no certain canon 
even of the old Testament for four hundred years after Christ; 
until, forsooth, the time of the council of Carthage? Was the 
church so long ignorant what books pertained unto the canon of 
scripture? A pretence at once false and impious! On the con- 
trary, the fathers who lived before that council testify that they 
very well knew and understood what books were divine and canoni- 
cal, as shall presently appear. Besides, that council of Carthage 
could not determine anything about the canon of scripture, so as 
to bind the whole church, since it was only a provincial one. 

But (it will be said) the universal Trullan synod determined 
that these books should be received into the canon, and defined 
this matter by its authority. If we ask, how we are to under- 
stand that this is so? they answer, from its approving the acts of 
the council of Carthage. But that is not enough to make this a 
clear case. For (besides that we have already sufficiently obviated 
the force of this argument), in the first place, the Trullan synod 
does, in the very same place and canon, approve also the acts of 
the council of Laodicea. If that canon, therefore, of the Trullan 
synod be genuine, the Laodicene and Carthaginian decrees con- 
cerning the canonical books do not contradict each other. Conse- 
quently, although these books be called in a certain sense canonical 
by the council of Carthage, yet they are im strictness wneano- 
nical, as they are pronounced to be by the council of Laodicea. 
But if the judgments of these councils be contradictory, the Trul- 
lan synod failed in prudence when it approved the acts of both. 

Secondly, the Trullan synod was held six hundred years after 
Christ. Now, was the canon of scripture unknown, or uncertain, 
or unapproved for so many ages? Who in his right senses would 
choose to affirm this ? 

Thirdly, the later church did not ls that the canon of 
scripture was in this way determined and defined by these councils; 
which may easily be understood from the testimonies of those 
writers who flourished in the church after those councils, as you 
shall hear presently. First of all, therefore, I will adduce the 


56 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [oH. 


testimonies of the ancient fathers, then of the later, from which 
the constant Judgment of the church concerning these books may 
be recognised. And although it may be somewhat tedious to go 
through them all, yet this so great multitude of witnesses must needs 
possess the greater authority in proportion to their numbers. 

Melito of Sardis, as Eusebius tells us, (Lib. 1v. cap. 26) testifies 
that he went into the East}, and learned with exact accuracy all the 
books of the old Testament. He, therefore, considered the matter 
by no means doubtful; which would have been impossible without 
a fully ascertained knowledge of the canon. Now this Melito, who 
took so much pains in determining these books, recites precisely 
the same books of the old Testament as we do, with the single ex- 
ception of the book of Wisdom. There are some, indeed, who think 
that this Wisdom of Solomon, which Melito mentions, is the book 
of Proverbs itself: but I do not agree with them?, for no cause can 
be given why the same book should be twice named. But though 
he might have mistaken in one book, he could not have mistaken 
in all, especially when using such diligenee as he professes himself 
to have used. The error arose from the circumstance, that this 
book was in the hands of many, and was more read and had in 
greater esteem than the rest. Indeed, I acknowledge that of all 
Apocryphal books most respect was always exhibited towards this 
one: and this is the reason why Augustine seems to defend its 
authority? (Lib. de Prsd. Sanct. c. 14); from which defence it is 
evident that this book was publicly read in the church, and that 
the chureh thought very honourably of its character. 


[1 áveAOdv oiv eis thy dvaroAjv...kai ákpuigàs pabdy rà Ths wadaas Óua- 
Onkns BiBdia, x. rr. p. 403. T. 1. ed. Heinichen. Lips. 1827.] 

[? The clause in question is Hapoupiai 7 kai Sopia, or, according to Stephens, 
7 Zopia; and the question, whether we should not rather read 7 or 7. 7 is 
the reading of six MSS. confirmed by Nicephorus and Rufinus (who trans- 
lates quc et Sapientia), and.adopted by Valesius. Stroth and Heinichen agree 
with Whitaker in preferring 7, in which I think them undoubtedly wrong, 
because when the title of a book is given in an index or catalogue, the article 
is hardly ever prefixed, and in this catalogue in particular never. In reply 
to Whitaker’s objection, I suppose it is sufficient to say that the Book of 
Proverbs is twice named, because it had two names. “Certe,”’ says Valesius, 
" veteres poene omnes proverbia Salomonis Sapientiam vocabant, interdum 
et Sapientiam panareton.” Cf. Euseb. H. E. tv. 22.] 

[? Qux cum ita sint, non debuit repudiari sententia libri Sapientise, qui 
meruit in ecclesia Christi de gradu lectorum ecclesiz Christi tam longa an- 
nositate recitari; et ab omnibus Christianis, ab episcopis usque ad extremos 
laicos fideles, poenitentes, catechumenos, cum veneratione divin: auctoritatis 
audiri. —Aug. Opp. T. x. 1370. c.] 


vi.] | QUESTION THE FIRST. 57 


Origen (in Eusebius, Lib. vr. e. 25) enumerates the same books 
as are acknowledged by our churches to be canonical, and says, 
that the testamentary books of the old Testament are two and 
twenty, according to the number of the Hebrew alphabet*. And 
many others after him have made the same remark. Now, if the 
canonical books agree in number with the Hebrew letters, as these 
fathers determine, then it is certain that no place is left in the 
sacred canon for those books concerning which we now dispute ; 
otherwise there would be more canonical books than Hebrew letters. 
But those books which we concede to be truly canonical correspond 
by a fixed proportion and number to the elements of the Hebrew 
alphabet. | 

Athanasius says, in his Synopsis: “Our whole scripture is 
divinely inspired, and hath books not infinite in number, but finite, 
and comprehended in a certain canon.” There was, therefore, at 
that time a fixed canon of scripture. He subjoins: “Now these are 
the books of the old Testament.” Then he enumerates ours, and 
no others, and concludes: “The canonical books of the old testa- 
ment are two and twenty, equal in number to the Hebrew letters.” 
But, in the meanwhile, what did he determine concerning the rest ? 
Why, he plainly affirms them to be uneanonical. For thus he 
proceeds: * But, besides these, there are also other non-canonical 
books of the old Testament, which are only read to the catechu- 
mens.” Then he names the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of 
Sirach, the fragments of Esther, Judith, Tobit. ** These,” says he, 
‘are the non-canonical books of the old Testament*." For Athana- 
sius makes no account of the books of Maccabees. He does not 
mention Esther in the catalogue, but afterwards remarks, that this 
book belongs to another volume ;—perhaps to Ezra, by whom 
Isidore and others say that book was written. And some fathers, 
when enumerating the books of scripture, do not mention this by 
name, either because they thought it part of some other book, or 
esteemed it apocryphal on account of those apocryphal additions of 
certain chapters. 


[4 oix dyvonréov 9 eivar tas évdiabnkovs BiBdovs, ds '"Egpato: rapadiddacw, 
dvo kai eikoot, 6oos 6 dpiÜuós rv Tap avrois GToLxElwv eoriv. | 

[5 maca ypadr) zv Xpiotiavdy Ocórvevarós eotiv, ovK dópwra Se, GAA 
püXXov wpicpeva Kal Kexavouopeva exer TA BiBria. Kal gore THs pév maracas 


» ^ e ^ ^ ^ 
SiaOnkns ravra... ... extos O€ rovrov eigi maw érepa BiBAia Tis abrije Tadaas 
, $ > ^ 
diaOnkns, ov KavoviCdpeva pev, dvaywceakópeva O2 póvov rois karnxovpévots . .. . 


Togavra kai rà py kavovi(ópueva.—Athanas. Opp. ii. 126, sqq. ed. Bened.—The 
Synopsis is the work of an uncertain author, falsely ascribed to Athanasius. ] 


58 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, speaks thus in the Prologue to his 
Exposition of the Psalms: “The law of the old Testament is con- 
sidered as divided into twenty-two books, so as to correspond with 
the number of the letters!" By the term “the Law” he denotes 
the whole scripture of the old Testament. 

Nazianzen, in his verses on the genuine books of sacred scrip- 
ture, fixes the same number of the books of the old Testament. 
These are the lines of Nazianzen, in which he declares that he 
counts twenty-two books in the canon, —that is, so many in number 
as the Hebrew letters : 

Apxatovs pev €Onxa vo xai eixoot BiBdovs, 
Tois ró» 'Efjpaiev ypappacw avribérovs”. 
He omits mentioning Esther; the reason of which we have before 
explained. 

Cyril of Jerusalem, in his fourth catechetical discourse, hath 
written many prudent and pious directions upon this matter. “Do 
thou,” says he, “learn carefully from the church what are the 
books of the old Testament. Read the divine scriptures, the two 
and twenty books?." Thus he shews that there were no more than 
twenty-two divine books. Then he enumerates the same books as 
are received by us for canonical, save that he includes in that 
number the book of Baruch, because he took it (though wrongly, 
as we shall prove anon) for a part of the book of Jeremiah. Now 
if any shall affirm that nevertheless there are other canonical books 
besides these, Cyril will refute him with this splendid objurgation : 
IloAv cov pov repot NOAV ot ATOTTOAOL kai oi ao xator emi- 
CKOTOL, OL THS ExkANolas TpooTarTat, ol TavTas mTapacovTes. As 
if he had said, * Who art thou, that thou shouldest make these 
books canonical? The apostles, the ancient bishops, the governors 
of the church, were much wiser than thou art, who have com- 
mended these books alone to us as canonical, and no others.” 
What now becomes of those who say, that these books were ap- 
proved by the apostles and the apostolic churches ? 

Epiphanius (Her. viri. contra Épicurzeos*) counts twenty-seven 


[1 Lex veteris Testamenti in viginti duos libros deputatur, ut cum litera- 
rum numero convenirent. He adds, however: Quibusdam autem visum 
est, additis Tobia et Judith, viginti quatuor libros secundum numerum Gre- 
carum literarum connumerare. | 

[2 Carm. xxxm. L. 28. p. 98. T. m. Opp. Nazianz. Colon. 1690. ] 

[3 Dropadds eriyvobt mapa rhs ékkNgoías Tota pev eiow ai THs madaas Óia- 
Onxns BiBro.... avayiveoke Tas Oeias ypadas, Tas etkoot Ovo BiBAous THs makaas 
diaOnxns. —Cyril. Hierosol. Catech. tv. 33. p. 67. ed. Tuttei.] 

[* Opp. i. p. 19. ed. Petavii.] 


vi. | | QUESTION THE FIRST. 59 


books of the old Testament, which he says were delivered by God 
to the Jews; or rather, as he subjoins, twenty-two: ws Ta cap 
avTois atoyera Tav 'E(jpaikóv ypaupatev apOuovueva. For 
so he determines that the genuine books of the old Testament are 
equal in number to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. But some 
books (as Epiphanius says) are doubled. Hence arises that variety 
in the sum; being counted when doubled, twenty-two, and, taking 
each book severally, twenty-seven. Then he adds, * There are 
also two other books which are doubtful,—the Wisdom of Sirach 
and that of Solomon, besides some others which are apocryphal*." 
He calls some dubious, some merely apocryphal. The same author 
writes, in his book of Weights and Measures®, that the Jews sent 
to king Ptolemy twenty-two books transcribed in golden letters, 
which he enumerates in a previous passage; although Josephus, in 
the beginning of his Antiquities, relates that only the five books 
of Moses were sent’. In this place he writes thus of those two 
books, the Wisdom of Solomon and of Sirach, which he had in the 
former citation called dubious: “They are indeed useful books, 
but are not included in the canon, and were not deposited in the 
ark of the covenant," Which is as much as to say plainly, that - 
they are not to be counted canonical. 

Ruffinus, in his Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed, says, that 
he intends to designate the volumes of the old and new Testaments, 
which are believed to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost him- 
self; and then he enumerates our books in both Testaments, sub- 
joining: * But it should be known that there are other books 
also, which were called by the ancients not canonical but ecclesiasti- 
cal, the Wisdom of Solomon and of Sirach, the book of Tobit, Judith, 
Maccabees. These,” says he, “they would have to be read in 
churches, but that nothing should be advanced from them for con- 
firming the authority of faith?" The papist Pamelius praises this 


[5 eigi 0€ kal dÀXat dv0 B(BXot wap’ adrois ev duirext@, rj codia Tod Zipàx, 
kai 7] ToU Sodopavros, xcplis Grov rwav [3u8Aiev évamokpódopov. Ib. c.] 

[6 Opp. ii. p. 100. De Pond. et Mens. cc. 22, 23.] 

[7 avra uóva rà Tod vóuov mapé0ocav oi meudÓévres emi viv e&nynow eis 
"AXefávüpeiav. Procem. $. 3, p. 3. ed. Havercamp. | 

[8 xpnowoe uév clot kai @hédipor, GAN eis apiOpdy pyTdv oük dvadépovra:, 
dud 0€ év rà 'Aapàv áveréÜnsav, oíre £v vj THs Siabjxns kiBerQ. Ib. p. 162. 
The passage is corrupt, and should probably be read—840 ovdé ép rH THs 
OiaÓrkns kir TH 'Apov [YAN] averéOnoar.] 

[9 Sciendum tamen est, quod et alii libri sunt, qui non canonici, sed eccle- 
siastici a majoribus appellati sunt: ut est Sapientia Salomonis, et alia Sa- 


60 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


book, but blames this single passage in it; which yet did not deserve 
reprehension, since it 1s both true and accordant with innumerable 
judgments of the ancient fathers. He would not even have praised 
it, if he had not seen it praised by many, who yet are far from 
blaming that in it which he disapproves. That exposition was 
really made by Ruffinus, though it was attributed to Cyprian. 

I come now to Jerome, who most plainly of all rejects these 
books from the canon, and argues strenuously against their canoni- 
cal authority, and shews himself a most vehement adversary of 
these books. It would be tedious to review all his testimonies. 
In the Prologus Galeatus to Paulinus, “ As," says he, “there are 
two and twenty letters, so there are counted two and twenty 
books." Then he adds: “This Prologue to the scriptures may 
serve as a sort of helmed head-piece for all the books which we 
have translated from the Hebrew into Latin, to let us know that 
whatever is out of these is to be placed amongst the Apocrypha. 
Therefore the Wisdom of Solomon, and Jesus, and Judith, and 
Tobit, are not in the canon!" ‘Testimonies of the same sort occur 
everywhere in his books. 

Gregory the Great, in his Commentaries on Job (Lib. xix. 
cap. 16), expressly writes that the books of Maccabees are not 
canonical?; and there is no doubt that he thought the same of 
the other books also. 

To these authorities of the ancient fathers, I will subjoin the 
testimony of Josephus, which exactly agrees with them, as it lies 
in his first book against Apion the grammarian, and is transcribed 
by Eusebius in the tenth chapter of the third book of his Eccle- 


pientia, quee dicitur Filii Sirach... Ejusdem ordinis est libellus Tobie et 
Judith et Maeeabseorum libri.... Quee omnia legi quidem in ecclesiis volue- 
runt, non tamen proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam.— Ex- 
posit. in Symb. Apost. in Append. ad Cyprian. ed. Fell. p. 26.] 

[! Quomodo igitur xx elementa sunt...ita xxir volumina supputantur. 
...Hie prologus scripturarum quasi galeatum principium omnibus libris, 
quos de Hebreo vertimus in Latinum, convenire potest, ut scire valeamus, 
quiequid extra hos est inter Apocrypha esse ponendum. Igitur Sapientia 
que vulgo Salomonis inscribitur, et Jesu filii Sirach liber, et Judith et 
Tobias et Pastor non sunt in canone.—The prologues of Jerome, being to be 
found in every common copy of the Vulgate and in a thousand other shapes, 
are not generally referred to by the page in these notes. ] 

[? De qua re non inordinate agimus, si ex libris, licet non canonicis, tamen 
ad zdificationem. ecclesie editis, testimonium proferamus. p. 622. A.B. 
Paris. 1705.] 


vi. | QUESTION THE FIRST. 61 


siastical History: * We have not innumerable books, inconsistent 
and conflicting with each other; but two and twenty books alone, 
containing the series of our whole history, and justly deemed 
worthy of the highest credit. Of these, five are by Moses; em- 
bracing the laws, and delivering down a narrative from the origin 
of the human race until his own death; which is a period of nearly 
three thousand years. From the death of Moses to the reign of 
Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets 
after Moses have written accounts of the events of their own 
times in thirteen books. The remaining four contain hymns to 
God and moral admonitions to man. It is true, that from the time 
of Artaxerxes to our own particular accounts have been written of 
the various events in our history: but these latter have not been 
deemed worthy of the same credit, because the succession of the 
prophets has not been regularly and exactly maintained in that 
interval?." 

Assuredly it is plain enough from this testimony of Josephus, 
what was the judgment of the Israelitish church concerning these 
books; and the testimonies which have been alleged from so many 
fathers, distinguished both by antiquity and sanctity, evince with 
the highest certainty that the opinion of the Christian church also 
could not have been different. 

Hitherto, therefore, we have proved by the clearest testimonies 
of the fathers that these books, about which we contend, are not 
canonical, but apocryphal; for so they are expressly called. There- 
fore these fathers plainly agree with us, and confirm our sentiments 
by their suffrages. 

But perhaps the papists may have an answer to allege suffi 


[3 od yàp pupiades BiBriav eli map’ "piv, dovppovey kai paxyopévov: Ovo 
dé pdva mpds rots etkoot BiBdia, Tod mavrós €xovra xpóvov THY avaypapyny, Ta 
Stxaiws Üeia memurrevpéva. Kal rovrov TévTe pev eote Ta Movaéos, a Tovs TE 
vónovs meptexet, kal THY THS avOpwroyovias mapddocw péxpt THs avtod reXevrijs. 
Otros 6 xpóvos ámoXeireu TpiaxiAi@y dXiyov éràv. 'Amó 0€ rs Movaéos Tedev- 
Ths péxpe THs '"Apraf£épfov ro) peta Xépfmv Ilepoàv faowéos apyis, oi pera 
Movojy mpopira rà kar avrovs mpaxÜévra cvvéypayrav év tpict kai Oéka fi- 

, € M ^ L4 A ? à A ^ ^ ^ 5 , € , 
Bios. Ai 0€ Aowral récaapes vpvovs eis Tov Ocóv Kal rois avOparo.s vroOrkas 

^ , É > 4 M) , ^ ^ (MS , , 
Tov Biov mepiexovow. ‘Amd 0€ Apra£ép£ov péexpe Tov Ka nuas xpdvov yéyparrat 
pev exaota: mía reos 0€ ovx ópoías r£(erat rote mpd airay dia TO pn yever Oat THY 
rà» mpopntav àkpiBz Siadoxnv. Androv 8 early épyw mas "eis Tots idious 

, ^ 3 ^ 
ypáppact memioTeUkapev* Toco)Urov yap aldvos non mapexrkóros, ore mrpoaeivat 

T » > Xx ^ > ^ » 0 ^ jÀ À 
TLS OUVOEV, OUTE ade «ew GQUT@Y, OVTE pEeTAVELVAL TETOALNKEY. K.T. A, Contra 


Apion. L. 1. c. 8.] 


62 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. | [cn. 


cient to shew that these testimonies avail us nothing. Indeed I will 
not dissemble their answer, nor conceal any thing from you that I 
know. Well then, in order to break the force of these testimonies 
and overturn our argument, some of them bring two objections: 
the first, that these fathers spoke of the Jewish, not of the Christian 
canon: the second, that the canon was not yet fixed; wherefore 
those fathers are not to be blamed for determining otherwise con- 
cerning the canon than the church afterwards defined, while we, 
nevertheless, are precluded from a similar liberty. Let us briefly 
obviate both objections. 

First of all, these fathers whom I have cited do speak of the 
canon of Christians, as any one who looks at their words themselves 
will readily perceive. The synod of Laodicea prescribes what 
books should be read as canonical in the churches. Melito declares 
that he had taken pains to find out what books should be received ; 
and this he did surely not for the sake of the Jews, but for his 
own. Athanasius says that those books which he calls uncanonical 
were wont to be read only to the catechumens. Now the catechu- 
mens were Christian catechumens. Cyril forbids the reading of 
those books which he calls apocryphal, and says that the apostles 
and old bishops and masters of the church had taken no other 
books into the canon than those which are received by us. Who 
does not see that he is speaking of the Christian canon? Although 
perhaps Cyril was too vehement in forbidding these books to be 
even read: for the other fathers, although they determine them 
to be apocryphal, yet permit their perusal. Ruffinus says, that 
those only which our churches also receive were received into the 
canon by the ancients (who doubtless were Christians), but that the 
rest were called by those same ancients, not canonical, but eccle- 
siastical. So Jerome, writing to Paulinus a Christian bishop, 
makes none others canonical than we do, and briefly describes the 
contents of these books, and of no others. Therefore he acknow- 
ledged no other canon of the sacred books than we do now. In 
his preface to the books of Chronicles he writes in these plain 
words: * The church knows nothing of apocryphal writings; we 
must therefore have recourse to the Hebrews, from whose text the 
Lord speaks, and his disciples choose their examples!" —** What is 
not extant with them is to be flung away from us?," says Jerome, 


[1 Apocrypha nescit ecclesia: ad Hebreeos igitur revertendum, unde et 
Dominus loquitur et discipuli exempla preesumunt. | 
[? Qux non habentur apud illos, procul abjicienda sunt. ] 


vi.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 63 


in his preface to Ezra and Nehemiah. And elsewhere, in his pre- 
face to the books of Solomon, he hath these words: * As therefore 
the church, while it reads Judith and Tobit and the books of Mac- 
cabees, yet receives them not amongst the canonical scriptures; so 
she may read these two volumes also [the Wisdom of Solomon and 
Sirach] for the edification of the people, not for confirming the 
authority of articles of faith?." Plainly Jerome speaks of the 
Christian church, and determines that the canon of the old Testa- 
ment is no other with Christians than it was with the Hebrews. 
They are absurd, therefore, who imagine a double canon. Again, 
in his first book against the Pelagians, he blames a heretie for 
citing testimonies from the Apocrypha, when proposing to prove 
something about the kingdom of heaven. 

In the next place, whereas they say that the canon of serip- 
ture was not then fixed, it 1s but fair that they should speak out, 
and teach us when afterwards it was fixed. If it be said, in the 
couneil of Florence or of Trent, these are but modern; and, I am 
very sure, they will not affirm that it was fixed so late. If in the 
council of Carthage, that council of Carthage was not general. If 
in the Trullan, those canons are censurable in many respects, even 
in the opinion of the papists themselves, as we have shewn clearly 
above. Will they concede then, either that there was no definite 
canon of scripture for six hundred years after Christ, or that these 
books were not received into the canon for so many ages? This in- 
deed would be sufficient to overturn the authority of the books. Let 
them answer, therefore, and mark the precise time, that we may 
understand when the canon of scripture was at length defined and 
described. If they can name any general council in which is extant 
the publie judgment of the church concerning the canonical books, 
let them produce it. Except this Trullan council, they have ab- 
solutely none at all. And this Trullan does not precisely affirm 
these books to be canonical, but only confirms the council of Car- 
thage; which is of no consequence, since it also confirms the council 
of Laodieea, and the papists themselves deny all credit to the 
Trullan eanons. Thus they are left without defence on any side. 
However, that you may the better see how empty that is which 
they are wont to urge about the Trullan synod; I will now 
shew, by the most illustrious and certain testimonies of those men 


[3 Sieut ergo Judith et Tobie et Machabeorum libros legit quidem ec- 
clesia, sed eos inter canonicas scripturas non reeipit; sic et h;e duo volu- 
mina legat ad sdificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum 
dogmatum confirmandam. ] 


64 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


who have governed and taught the church of Christ in more 
recent times, that since that council these books were nevertheless 
not held to be canonical in the church. 

Isidore, who lived almost in those very times, says (in Lib. de 
Offic.) that the old Testament was settled by Ezra in two and 
twenty books, “that the books in the law might correspond in 
number with the letters!" John Damascene (Lib. tv. c. 18.) says: 
“Tt must be known that there are two and twenty books of the 
old Testament, according to the alphabet of the Hebrew language?." 
Thus Damascene agrees with those ancient doctors concerning the 
number of the canonical books of the old Testament. The Wisdom 
of Solomon and Sirach he praises indeed, but puts them out of the 
canon: the rest he does not even mention. Yet he lived, as 
every one knows, after the Trullan Synod. So Nicephorus (apud 
Cyrum Prodromum in versibus) : 

Ths mev maXaiüs eigiv etkogt Ovo. 
“There are two and twenty books of the old Testament."  Like- 
wise Leontius determines, in his book of Seets (Act. 2), that there 
are no more canonical books of the old Testament than the twenty- 
two which our churches receive. Thus he speaks: “Of the old 
Testament there are twenty-two books." Then he goes through 
all the books of the old and new Testaments in order, and finally 
subjoins, ** These are the books, old and new, which are esteemed 
canonical in the church?" Rabanus Maurus (De Inst. Cler. c. 54) 
says, that the whole old Testament was distributed by Ezra into 
two and twenty books, “that there might be as many books in the 
law as there are letters" ^ Radulphus (Lib. xiv. in Lev. c. 1.): 
“Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees, although they be read for 
instruction in the church, yet have they not authority5." "Therefore 
they are not canonical. Hugo S. Victoris (Prolog. Lib. 1. de Sa- 
cram. c. 7) says, that * these books are read indeed, but not written 
in the body of the text or in the authoritative canon ; that is, such 
as the book of Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, 


[1 Ut tot libri essent in lege, quot et literze habentur.— Isid. de Eccl. Offic. 
Lib. 1. c. 12.] 

[2 iecréov ds etxoor kai 0vo BiBdot elai rijs madaas SiaOnKns karà rà OTOLXELa 
Ths ‘EBpaidos Qovfjs.] 

[3 radra éore Ta kavowópeva BiBria év TH exkAnola, kai zraXatà kai véa.] 

[* Ut tot libri essent in lege, quot habentur et literee. —Rab. Maur. de 
Instit. Cleric. Lib. 11. e. 54.] 

[> Tobias, Judith et Machabseorum, quamvis ad instructionem ecclesi« 
legantur, tamen non habent auctoritatem. ] 


vi. | | QUESTION THE FIRST. 65 


and Ecclesiasticus." Again, (Didaseal. Lib. iv. c. 8) “As there 
are twenty-two alphabetie letters, by means of which we write in 
Hebrew, and speak what we have to say, and the compass of the 
human voice is included in their elementary sounds; so twenty-two 
books are reckoned, by means of which, being as it were the 
alphabet and elements in the doctrine of God, the yet tender infancy 
of our man is instructed, while it still hath need of milk®.” Twenty- 
two letters form the language, and twenty-two books the faith. 
The same is the opinion of Richardus de S. Victore, (Exception. 
Lib. nu. c. 9). For, after telling us that there are twenty-two 
canonical books of the old Testament, he presently subjoins: 
“There are besides other books, as the Wisdom of Solomon, the 
book of Jesus the son of Sirach, and the book of Judith and Tobit, 
and the book of Maccabees, which are read indeed, but not written 
in the canon?" In which words he plainly denies them to be 
canonical. And presently after, in the same place: “In the old 
Testament there are certain books which are not written in the 
canon, and yet are read, as the Wisdom of Solomon, &c.” So 
Lyra, (Prolog. in libros Apoeryph.); Dionysius Carthusianus, (Com- 
ment. in Gen. in princip.); Abulensis, (in Matt. c. 1); Antoninus, 
(3 p. Tit. xvi. e. 5). Cardinal Hugo, in his Prologue to Joshua, 
calls Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, and Eccle- 
siasticus, apocryphal; and says that the church does not receive 
them for proof of the faith, but for instruction in life, These are 
his lines; in metre, poor enough ; in sense, excellent. 


Restant apocryphi, Jesus, Sapientia, Pastor, 

Et Machabeorum libri, Judith atque Tobias: 

Hi, quod sunt dubii, sub canone non numerantur ; 
Sed quia vera canunt, ecclesia suscipit illos. 


Bat, in what sense the church always received them, the same 
author explains elsewhere (in Prol. Hieron. in Lib. Regum)? : * Such 
the church receives not for proof of the faith, but for instruction 


[9 Quomodo ergo viginti duo elementa sunt, per quz Hebraice scribimus, 
omneque loquimur, et eorum initiis vox humana comprehenditur; ita viginti 
duo volumina supputantur, quibus quasi literis et exordiis in Dei doctrina 
tenera adhuc et lactens viri nostri eruditur infantia. ] 

[7 Sunt preeterea alii libri, ut Sapientia Salomonis, liber Jesu Filii Sirach, 
et Liber Judith, et Tobias, et liber Machabeorum, qui leguntur quidem, sed 
non scribuntur in Canone.—Opp. p. 320. Rothomag. 1650.] 

[8 Tales recipit ecclesia, non ad probationem fidei, sed ad morum in- 
structionem.—Opp. Venet. 1703. T. r. p. 218. 2.] 


5 


[ WHITAKER. | 


66 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ oH. 


in morals.” Which other fathers also had said before him. The 
Gloss upon Gratian’s decree (Dist. 16) affirms that the Bible has 
some apocryphal books in it. Erasmus in many places maintains 
the same opinion, and Cardinal Cajetan most expressly. Now all 
these flourished after the Trullan synod, and some of them after 
the Florentine; and the church of Rome acknowledges them all as 
her sons and disciples; except perhaps Erasmus, whom she hath 
expelled, as he deserves, from her family: although Leo the 
Tenth called even him, in a certain epistle, his most dearly beloved 
son!, Antonio Bruccioli, an Italian, translated the old Testament 
into the Italian language’, and wrote commentaries upon the cano- 
nical books, but omitted the apocryphal. Even since the council 
of Trent, Arias Montanus, who was himself present in that synod, 
and published that vast biblical work, and is called by Gregory 
XIII. his son, in an edition of the Hebrew Bible with an inter- 
linear version declares that the orthodox church follows the canon of 
the Hebrews, and reckons apocryphal the books of the old Testa- 
ment which were written in Greek. 

Thus, therefore, I conclude: If these books either were canoni- 
cal, or so declared and defined by any public and legitimate judgment 
of the church; then these so numerous fathers, ancient and modern, 
could not have been ignorant of it, or would not have dissented, 
especially since they were such as desired both to be, and to be 
esteemed, catholics. But these fathers, so numerous, so learned, so 
obedient to the godly precepts of the church, were not aware that the 
church had decreed any such thing concerning the canon of scrip- 
ture, and openly pronounced these books to be apocryphal. There- 
fore these books are not canonical, and were never inserted in the 
sacred canon of scripture by any legitimate authority or sanction 
of the church. Whence it follows that our church, along with all 
other reformed churches, justly rejects these books from the canon ; 
and that the papists falsely assert them to be canonical. If they 
demand testimonies, we have produced them. If they ask for a 
multitude, they ought to be content with these which are so many, 
and may well satisfy their desires with them. 


[! See Leo’s Epistle *Dilecto Filio Erasmo Roterod.” prefixed to Eras- 
mus' Greek Testament, Basil. 1535.] 

[2 The first edition was printed in 1530. "There were three others printed 
in his life-time, in 1539, 1540, 1541. See an account of him in Simon, Hist. 
Crit. p. 333.] 


vit. ] QUESTION THE FIRST. 67 


CHAPTER VII. 
OF THE BOOK OF BARUCH. 


OrpDER requires that we should now treat particularly of these 
several apocryphal scriptures: and first of those which are counted 
parts of the canonical books. Here, in the first place, what is 
commonly called **the book of Baruch” claims an examination. To 
confirm the authority of this book, our opponents avail themselves 
of four arguments. The first is, that there is a quotation made 
from the last chapter of Baruch in 2 Mace. ch. ii. The second, that 
the councils of Florence and Trent place this book by name amongst 
the canonical scriptures. The third, that the church takes some 
lessons from this book in her anniversary offices. The fourth, that 
many fathers produce testimonies from this book as canonical. 
From these premises Bellarmine concludes that this book is truly 
canonical (Lib. 1. c. 8). To these we can answer briefly: for the 
arguments are, as you see, altogether slight ones, and require no 
very long reply. Thus, therefore, I answer them severally. 

To the first: The second book of Maccabees is apocryphal; as 
I shall hereafter prove by demonstrative arguments. Now one 
apocryphal book cannot confirm by its testimony the authority of 
another apocryphal book. Therefore this is no argument. 

To the second: We care nothing for those councils. They 
were popish and altogether antichristian assemblies. The papists 
may attribute as much weight to those councils as they please: we 
refuse to be pressed or bound by any such authority. 

As to what is objected in the third place,—although the church 
used to read, and still does read, certain parts of this book, yet it by 
no means hence follows that the book is in the genuine and strict 
sense canonical. For we have shewn above, from Jerome and other 
fathers, that the church was wont formerly to read books not 
canonical, for the benefit of the people in forming their morals, but 
not for confirmation of the faith. Besides, what church is it whose 
example they object to us as an argument? For we are so far from 
recognising in the custom of the Roman church the force of so 
great an argument, that we count it a matter of very slight im- 
portance. 

To the last: I acknowledge that some testimonies are cited 
from this book by the fathers; and I add too that some of them 

5—2 


68 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


believed this piece to be a part of Jeremiah. And, in truth, this 
book does seem preferable to the rest of the apocrypha: for every- 
thing in it, whether we consider the matter or the style, appears 
more august and suitable to the sacred character than in the other 
books. Nevertheless, the book is apocryphal, as you shall hear. 
There is no consequence in this reasoning: Some fathers thought 
this book a part of Jeremiah, therefore it is a part of Jeremiah. 
For those fathers were in error, as is manifest. Nor is there force 
in this inference: Some fathers cited testimonies from this book, 
therefore the book hath canonical authority. For testimonies are 
often alleged from other books also, which are by no means to be 
esteemed canonical. Irenzeus cites the book of the Shepherd (as 
Eusebius relates, Lib. v. c. 8)!; but I suppose he did not deem that 
book part of the canonical scriptures. Yet, alleging a passage from - 
it, he hath used the expression, * Well spoke the scripture which 
says, &c." And Eusebius writes of him, * He receives the scripture 
ofthe Shepherd." And Nicephorus also attests the same, Lib. 1v. c. 14. 
In like manner Athanasius, in his third oration against the Arians, 
produees something from the book of Baruch: but the same writer 
does also, in the same oration, bring forward a testimony, to prove 
that the word is God, from the third of Esdras, which book our 
adversaries confess to be apocryphal. Testimonies out of this third 
book of Esdras are used also by Cyprian (Epist. txxiv.)?; by Au- 
gustine (Vet. ac Nov. Test. Quest. 109%, and Civit. Dei, Lib. xvut. 
c. 96)*; and Ambrose (De bono Mortis, c. 10), in order to prove 
that souls are not extinguished with the body 5. Now this book of 
Esdras is not canonical, as the papists themselves allow ; so that it 
is manifest that the cause is not coneluded by this argument. 


[! Od uóvov Se oder, GAG kai ámoBéxerai Thy Tod llowiévos ypapny, Aéyov: 
‘“ Kaas ov eimev 7) ypadn 7j Aéyovaa, k. T. A^. T. 1r. p. 54. ed. Heinich.] 

[2 Scientes quia et apud Esdram veritas vicit, sieut Scriptum est, veritas 
manet et invalescit in seternum. p. 215. ed. Fell.] 

[3 Et audi Zorobabel, qui super omnia ait veritas.—Aug. Opp. T. rrr. p. 
11. 2980, A. The reference is 3 Esdr. iii. 12. But this is not a genuine 
piece: see the admonition prefixed by the Benedictines. ] 

[4 Nisi forte Esdras in eo Christum prophetasse intelligendus est, quod... 
... veritatem super omnia demonstravit esse victricem.—Ibid. T. vu. 833, 
A. B.] 

[5 De quo tibi Esdree librum legendum suadeo, qui et illas philosophorum 
nugas despexerit; et abditiore prudentia, quam collegerat ex revelatione, 
perstrinxerit eas substantisz esse superioris.—Epistt. Class. 1. Ep. 34. n. 2. T. 
vil. p. 433. Paris. 1839.] 


Vil. | . QUESTION THE FIRST. 69 


The papists object, that these books of Esdras are not cited by 
those fathers as sacred and canonical, but that the book of Baruch 
and the rest are cited and mentioned by them in such a manner as 
to shew that they thought them to be truly canonical. Therefore 
there is no analogy between the two cases. I answer, that they 
are indeed styled by them sacred, and scriptures, but in a certain 
general sense. For most of them did not suppose that the books 
were sacred in such a sense as to leave no difference between them 
and the books which are truly divine and canonical. This John 
Driedo, one of the chief popish writers, expressly testifies in the 
case of this very book of Baruch. For thus he writes (de Cat. 
Script. Lib. 1. c. 4. ad Difficult. 11): “So Cyprian, Ambrose, and 
the other fathers cite sentences from the book of Baruch, and from 
the third and fourth of Esdras, not as if they were canonical books, 
but as containing salutary and pious doctrines, not contrary, but 
rather consonant to our faith®.” A papist answers the objection of 
the papists: for in these words he denies that the book of Baruch 
is either canonical, or cited as such by those fathers. Melchior 
Canus too (Lib. xu. e. 6) writes thus of this same book: “ For, as 
we have shewn in the second book, the church hath not placed the 
book of Baruch in the number of the sacred writings so certainly and 
clearly, as to make it a plain catholie verity that it 1s a sacred piece, 
or a plain heresy that it is not. That book, therefore, or any other, 
which may be called in question without heresy, can not produce 
certain and evident verities of the catholic faith?." From this testi- 
mony of Canus I collect, in the first place, that the book of Baruch 
is not clearly canonical: in the next, that we may deny its canonicity 
without heresy: lastly, that no firm and evident verity of the 
catholic faith can be derived from this book ;—an evident proof 
that the book itself is apocryphal, since all canonical books are fit 
to produce certain and evident verities of the catholic faith. 

Aquinas, however, in his Commentary upon Jude, says, that it 


[6 Sic Cyprianus, Ambrosius, ceterique patres citant sententias ex libro 
Baruch, et 3 et 4 Esra, non tanquam ex canonicis libris, sed tanquam ex 
libris continentibus queedam pia, juvantia et non contraria, sed consona potius 
fidei nostree.—Opp. Lovan. 1550. T. 1. p. 22.] 

[^ Nam, ut in secundo libro docuimus, libellum Baruch non adeo explorate 
et firmiter in sacrorum numero ecclesia reposuit, ut aut illum esse sacrum 
fidei catholieze veritas expedita sit, aut non esse sacrum heresis expedita sit. 
Libellus ergo iste, sive quilibet alius, qui in queestionem citra crimen heereseos 
vocari possit, non efficit certas atque constantes catholice; fidei veritates.— 
Opp. Colon. Agripp. 1605. p. 588.] 


70 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ on. 


is “lawful to derive a testimony to the truth from an apocryphal 
book,” since Jude the apostle hath cited a passage from the apo- 
cryphal book of Enoch, v. 14. But, although I by no means deny 
that it is just as much lawful to quote a passage from an apocry- 
phal book, as from a profane author,—as Paul cites an Iambic line 
from Menander, 1 Cor. xv. 33, a hemistich from Aratus, Acts 
xvii. 28, and an heroic verse from Epimenides the Cretan, Tit. 
i. 12; yet I do not think that this passage, which Jude recites, 
is taken from an apocryphal book, because Jude uses the term 
apoepytevce, “he prophesied.” Consequently, he hath adduced 
this as a prophetical testimony: unless, perhaps, he used the word 
prophet here in the same sense as Paul when he called Epimenides 
a prophet ; though, indeed, he does not style him a prophet simply, 
but a prophet of the Cretans. 

We have now sufficiently shaken the authority of this book. 
For I ask, who wrote it? Either Baruch himself, or Jeremiah, is 
counted the author of the book. But neither of them could have 
written it; as is clear from hence—that it was written in Greek, 
not in Hebrew, as Jerome tells us, and as the book itself shews. 
For Jerome says, in the preface to Jeremiah!, that this book is not 
read by the Hebrews, nor extant amongst them, and that it was 
therefore wholly omitted by him. But if it had been written by 
that Baruch, or by Jeremiah himself, it would doubtless have 
appeared in Hebrew, not in Greek: for Jeremiah spoke in 
Hebrew, and published his prophecies in the Hebrew language; 
and Baruch was Jeremiah's scribe, and committed many things 
to writing from Jeremiah's lips, as we find in Jerem. xxxvi. 4. 
Besides, the very phraseology and diction is Greek, not so con- 
densed, nervous, sedate, and majestic as the style of scripture is 
wont to be. In the Epistle of Jeremiah, which is recited in 
Chap. vi, the expression, ** Ye shall be there seven generations,” 
(v. 2), is new and foreign to the Hebrew idiom: for in the Hebrew 
books the term “generation” is never used to designate a period 
often years, as Francis Junius hath correctly observed. Whoever 
wrote this book was a Greek, or wrote in Greek. Consequently 
he was neither Baruch nor any other of the prophets. Thus we 


prove by inevitable deduction that this book must be necessarily 
esteemed apocryphal. 


[! Librum autem Baruch notarii ejus, qui apud Hebreos nec legitur nec 
habetur, preetermisimus.—T. rx. p. 783.] 


vit. | | QUESTION THE FIRST. 71 


CHAPTER VIIT. 
OF THE SEVEN APOCRYPHAL CHAPTERS OF ESTHER. 


So much of Esther as is Hebrew, that is, canonical, we receive ; 
and therefore we raise no question concerning those ten chapters 
which are contained in the Hebrew books. The whole question 
and controversy is concerning those seven last chapters, which are 
of a different family and stamp, as we shall easily make appear. 
The papists will have those seven chapters joined to the rest, 
without any distinction in point of authority, because the Triden- 
tine council, which has more weight with them than all reason and 
scripture together, commands those books to be received with all 
their parts. Their arguments are nearly the same as were alleged 
for the book of Baruch. Some passages from these chapters are 
read in the offices of the church, and the fathers sometimes adduce 
testimonies from them: the little force of which kind of reason- 
ing we have already sufficiently exposed. They say besides that 
Josephus (Antiq. Lib. x. cap. 6?) mentions two epistles of Aha- 
suerus, which are found in these last chapters and not in the pre- 
vious ones, These are the arguments of our opponents. 

I do not choose to reply again to what has been already re- 
futed. But I will observe that the argument which rests upon the 
authority of Josephus is inconclusive. Jor, in the first place, what 
if Josephus took something from these chapters, to enlarge or illus- 
trate his history ? must he therefore have deemed these chapters 
to appertain to the canonical scripture? But, concerning this 
whole matter, let Lyra answer for me, who, in the close of his 
commentary upon this book, makes use of the following expressions?: 
“The rest which comes after I do not intend to explain, because 
it is not in the Hebrew, nor belongs to the canonical scripture, 
but rather seems to have been invented by Josephus and other 
writers, and afterwards inserted in the vulgar edition.” Josephus, 
therefore, did not take those things from any canonical book, but 
was himself the first writer of them; and others afterwards, read- 


[2 The reference should be xr. c. vi. $ 12. pp. 575, 576.  Haverc.] 

[3 Cetera quz» sequuntur non intendo exponere, quia non in Hebrzo sunt, 
nec de scriptura canonica, sed magis videntur a Josepho et aliis scriptoribus 
conficta, et postea editioni vulgatze inserta.—Nic. Lyrani Comment. Antwerp. 
1634. in fin. Estheree. ] 


72 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. | [cn. 


ing them in Josephus, copied them into the Bible. But although 
they were, as Lyra says, inserted in the vulgar edition, it does not 
therefore follow that they were ever allowed a canonical authority. 
Sixtus Senensis (Lib. r.) approves and follows the opinion of Lyra!. 
Lastly, it is certain that Josephus's own judgment concerning the 
canonieal books was no other than that of Jerome, as appears from 
his first book against Apion. There he determines that no books 
are canonical, but such as were written by prophets of ascertained 
authority. Now these chapters were not written by any prophet, 
which I will prove by the following arguments. 

In the first place, the matters related in the former chapters 
are told over again in these following ones; which repeated narra- 
tion of the same events sufficiently shews that all were not written 
by the same person. For there was no reason whatever for his 
telling the same history twice over. Nor would the same author 
have written the latter part in a different language from the 
former. But if he were another person, why yet, if he were a 
prophet, did he not use the Hebrew tongue, the proper language 
of prophecy ? Learned men make either Ezra, or Joachim the 
priest, or Mordecai himself, the author of this book, and recognise 
no other than these. 

Secondly. There are many incongruities and inconsistencies, 
which it is impossible to reconcile, in these chapters, of which I 
will produce some specimens. first, in chap. xi. 2, Mordecai is 
said to have dreamed of the two eunuchs who conspired against 
the king, in the second year. See also chap. xi. 1. But in 
the second chapter, which is canonical, ver. 16, we read that this 
conspiracy took place in the seventh year of Ahasuerus.  Bellar- 
mine answers, that the narrative of the plot which is contained in 
chap. xii. belongs to the beginning of the book ; but that what we 
read to have occurred in the second year in ies xi. is not to be 
understood of the plot, but of the dream of Mordecai: for that the 
plot was laid in the seventh year, as we are told in the second 
chapter. But all this is said without proofs, and in spite of the 
plain declaration of the book itself. For at the close of chap. xi. 
Mordecai says that, when he arose, he pondered many thoughts in 
his mind concerning that dream, until the night, (ées tis vuKTos) ; 
and that then, as he rested in the court with the two eunuchs, he 


[! Even in our own times, notwithstanding the stringent declaration of 
the council of Trent, this seems to have been the opinion of some respect- 
able Roman Catholic divines, e. g. John in his Einleitung in A. T.] 


vil. | QUESTION THE FIRST. 73 


detected their conspiracy. There was not therefore an interval of 
five years between the dream of Mordecai and the plot of the 
eunuchs, as Bellarmine fancies, but only of one day, if there be 
faith in the book itself. 

Secondly, the narrative in this book was written many years 
after the death of Mordecai. For, in chap. xi.? mention is made of 
Ptolemy and Cleopatra, who assuredly lived after the times of 
Mordecai and of the prophets. Nor can one well understand what 
the meaning of that passage is intended to be. Lysimachus of Jeru- 
salem, the son of Ptolemy, is said to have “interpreted the present 
epistle of Phurim,” which Dositheus and his son Ptolemy brought in 
the reign of Ptolemy and Cleopatra. Bellarmine says it may be 
answered, that the first author of this book, who wrote the history 
of Esther in Hebrew, drew up only the sum of the story, and that 
this Hebrew narrative has come down to us; that then, at some 
other time, the history was written more copiously by some other 
person, and translated into the Greek language by Lysimachus, as 
is indicated in chap. xi.; and that not the original book of this 
later author, but only a translation of it, is now extant. 

But, in the first place, Lysimachus is not here said to have 
translated any Hebrew book into the Greek tongue, but only the 
epistle of Phurim. And, in the next place, if the assertion that 
the later author wrote this history more copiously than the former 
were true, then this history, of which a translation only hath 
survived, could not be that which the later author wrote: for it 
is shorter than the Hebrew history, and does not give the series 
of the narrative at all so fully, as every one may readily perceive. 
Lastly, who translated this Greek translation of Lysimachus into 
Latin? Jerome found a certain Latin translation, and subjoined 
it to his version, though containing, as he tells us, some things 
which were extant neither in the Hebrew, nor in the text of any 
other interpreter. Yet this vulgar translation, which Jerome 
deemed utterly unfaithful, is in the highest sense authentic and 
canonical with the papists. 


[2 The passage referred to is plainly a scholium, or marginal note, as 
follows: éro)s meráprov Baowevovros IIroAegaíov kai KAeomárpas clonveyke 
AocíÜeos, bs dm eva, iepeds kai Aevirns, kai IlroAegaios 6 vids avro), Tiv mpo- 
keievny emiotoAny Tov dpovpal, ijv epacay elvar kai npynvevkevar Avaipaxov 
IIroAeuatov tov év 'lepovcaNjg. Compare Ussher de LXX. Int. p. 22, and 
Valekenaér de Aristobulo Judso, p. 63, who supposes this Lysimachus to 
have been the author also of what is called the Third Book of Maccabees.] 


74 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


Thirdly, this pretended author tells us, chap. xi. 5, that a 
reward was given by the king to Mordecai for his information ; 
whereas, in chap. vi. 3 of the true history, we read that no reward 
was bestowed upon him. Bellarmine, however, replies that there 
is no difficulty here; since in chap. xii. that magnificent reward is 
meant which he afterwards received. But any one who reads the 
place itself will see, that this interpretation can by no means stand. 
For in this twelfth chapter Haman is said to have plotted mischief 
against Mordecai, after the gifts were bestowed upon him; which 
cannot be understood of those most distinguished honours and gifts 
with which the king graced him after he had read the annals, 
For that very morning, as we read in chap. vi, Haman was in 
attendance to settle with the king about hanging Mordecai; and 
that very day Mordecai was raised to the highest dignity, and 
loaded with royal favours. Nor could Haman, after that, attempt 
anything against him: for Mordecai was then in the highest 
favour with the king, and Haman himself was presently hanged 
upon that same day. Therefore here there must be some false- 
hood upon the other side. 

Fourthly, in chap. xii. 6, Haman is said to have been enraged 
against Mordecai on account of the eunuchs whom Mordecai 
accused, and whom, upon being arraigned of treason, and convicted 
by Mordecai’s evidence, the king had punished capitally. But it 
is incredible that Haman, who had received such honour and dig- 
nity from the king, should have favoured the treason of the 
eunuchs; and nothing of the kind is found in the true history, 
but, on the contrary, a very different cause of his offence and 
anger is assigned, chap. iii. 

Fifthly, in chap. xv. 7, this author says that, when Esther 
came into the king's presence, the king looked upon her with so 
angry a countenance, that she fainted through fear. On the con- 
trary, chap. v. 2, she is said to have obtained great favour on 
coming in to the king. 

Sicthly, in chap. xvi. 10, Haman is called a Macedonian ; 
but in chap. viii. 3, we find him to have been an Agagite, that is, 
of the race of Amalek. 

Seventhly, Haman is not only said (chap. xvi) to have been 
a Macedonian himself, but also to have designed, after removing 
Mordecai and Esther, to lay violent hands upon the king, in order 
to transfer the kingdom of the Persians to the Macedonians. But, 
first, how could Haman have transferred the kingdom of the Per- 


VIII. | QUESTION THE FIRST. 75 


sians to the Macedonians, if he had succeeded ever so well in putting 
the king to death? For the kingdom of the Macedonians was at 
that time little or nothing. Besides, the true history contains not 
a trace of the story told in chap. xvi, that he plotted against 
Mordecai and Esther, in order that, by their destruction, he might 
the more easily attack the king, and transfer the kingdom to the 
Macedonians. For he was not aware that the queen was a Jewess, 
or related to Mordecai; and he devised all sorts of mischief against 
Mordecai, not to open himself a way to the kingdom, but simply to 
satisfy his malice. For Mordecai was not, in the beginning, when 
Haman first conceived this grudge against him, in any station of 
authority, so as in any way to eclipse his splendour. But if any one 
choose to say that Mordecai’s information was the means of saving 
the king from assassination, and that thus an obstacle was set in 
the way of Haman’s ambition, and it was this which kindled such 
a blaze of hatred; he must be given to understand that he contra- 
dicts the sacred narrative. For that conspiracy of the eunuchs 
and the information of Mordecai took place before Haman had 
acquired so much favour and power in the royal court, as is mani- 
fest from the second chapter and the beginning of the third. 

All these things are of such a nature, that they can by no means 
stand together or be reconciled with each other: whence it follows, 
that the authority of these chapters must needs fall to the ground. 
And rightly is it ordered that these chapters are not read in our 
church. 

Thirdly. These chapters are not written in Hebrew. For 
Jerome says that he had marked these chapters with an obelus set 
before them ; which is the mark by which he is wont to indicate 
apocryphal additions. For the pretence of some that they were 
once in the Hebrew text, but have now dropped out of it, is easily 
refuted by what we have observed already. Jerome had no sus- 
picion of this, and the style cries out against it, and reason proves 
the contrary. For how could they have been better preserved in 
the Greek than in the Hebrew? or what need is there to give any 
credit to mere fictions and conjectures of this nature ? 

Fourthly. Besides other authors, and some papists also, whom 
I have already alleged, Sixtus Senensis, who wrote his Bibliotheca 
after the council of Trent, in the first book of that work asserts 
these chapters to be apocryphal; a concession which he never 
would have made, unless overcome by the very force of truth, 
since he labours so energetically to maintain the credit of the other 


76 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


apocryphal pieces. Nor did the Tridentine decree, requiring the 
books there mentioned to be received with their parts, avail to 
turn him from his opinion. For he contends that this is no native 
and genuine part of the Book of Esther, but that in these chapters 
all is supposititious. He writes in plain words, that “by reason of 
these strips appended, inserted by the rashness of certain writers 
from various quarters’,” it had come to pass that it was late ere 
this book acquired a canonical authority amongst Christians. So 
clearly did pious men see these to be fabulous, that they threw a 
shade of suspicion over even the canonical portions. And though 
this papist, Sixtus, is blamed by the Jesuits, yet is he not refuted. 
But let us leave them to quarrel amongst themselves. 





CHAPTER IX. 
OF THE APOCRYPHAL PARTS OF DANIEL. 


To confirm the authority of these parts, the papists can allege 
no peculiar argument. For their allegation, that the fathers quote 
testimonies from these chapters as well as from the others, and call 
them testimonies of scripture, is devoid of strength. They do in- 
deed quote them, and call them scriptures; but they do not affirm 
them to be canonical scriptures, such as the Books of Moses and 
the prophets. They are styled scriptures, because they used to 
be publicly read in the church, that the people might thence take 
noble examples of morals, and were preferred (as Augustine says in 
a certain place) to the treatises of all other discoursers?. But this 
is far from proving the authority of these portions equal to that of 
the remainder of the book, which is truly canonical. Now, there- 
fore, let us say a few words of that Hymn of the three children 
which is commonly placed in, and reckoned to the end of the third 
chapter; and of the History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, 
which are joined in the vulgar Bibles with the prophecy of Daniel, 
and counted a part of it. These pieces I will prove to be spurious 
and apocryphal by sound and cogent arguments. 


[1 Propter has appendicum lacinias hinc inde quorundam scriptorum te- 
meritate insertas.—p. 20. Paris. 1610.] 

[2 Qui sententiis tractatorum instrui volunt, oportet ut istum ibrar 
sapientie ..... omnibus tractatoribus anteponant.—August. de Pradest. 
Sanct. Lib. 1. c. 14.] 


ix.] | QUESTION THE FIRST. 77 


First, then, let us hear Jerome expressly pronouncing his 
judgment concerning these portions. Thus he speaks, in his proem 
to Daniel, and in the preface of his commentary upon that pro- 
phet: ‘Daniel, as it stands in the Hebrew text, has neither the 
History of Susanna, nor the Hymn of the three children, nor the 
fables of Bel and the Dragon; which we, considering that they are 
now dispersed over the whole world, have subjoined with an obelus 
prefixed, and [as it were] striking them through, lest the ignorant 
should think that we had cut off a great part of the volume?." 
From these words of Jerome we collect: 1. That no part of these 
pieces was found in the Hebrew, which sufficiently proves them to 
be spurious. 2. That they seemed to Jerome to deserve the stroke 
of that obelus by which he uses to distinguish the apocryphal from 
the canonical passages. 3. That, nevertheless, they were in use 
and read every where. 4. That he would himself have omitted 
them, but that he feared the calumnies of certain persons. 5. 
That it was the unlearned who supposed that these were really 
any parts of Daniel. 

Secondly, John Driedo (de Catal. Scripture, Lib. 1. cap. ult.) 
does not say that this history is canonical, but only that it is not 
to be despised; and that he who believes these things to be all 
true, falls into no pernicious error; * even as we read,” says he, 
*the acts of the martyrs, from which we do not derive arguments 
for matters of faith*." You see what distinguished and honourable 
opinions the papists themselves entertain of this history. We our- 
selves can not think more lowly than they do of this class of 
writings. But that learned theologian saw that it was impossible 
to frame any more exalted judgment of these fragments, since they 
are not found in the Hebrew and sacred volumes of the scrip- 
ture, but are derived from the Greek translation of the worthless 
and perfidious Theodotion. 

Thirdly, that Paronomasia, of which Jerome speaks in the pre- 
face to Daniel, az0 tov GXivov GXxicet, avo TOU Tpivou T pig ec, 

[3 Apud Hebreeos nee Susanne habes historiam, nec hymnum trium puo- 
rorum, nec Belis draconisque fabulas: quas nos, quia in toto orbe disperse 
sunt, veru— anteposito, eoque jugulante, subjecimus, ne videremur apud im- 


peritos magnam partem voluminis detruncasse.—Hieron. Opp. T. 1x. 1362. 
ed. Vallars. Veron:e. 1738.] 


[* Ut legimus gesta martyrum, ex quibus argumentum non sumimus effi- 
cax ad demonstrandum ea que sunt fidei.—T. 1. p. 22.] 

[^ Audivi ego quendam de preceptoribus Judzeorum, quum Susanne 
derideret historiam, et a Greco nescio quo diceret esse confictam, illud op- 


78 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ oH. 


proves that this little story was not written in Hebrew, but in 
Greek. Daniel asked one of the elders, under what tree he had 
found Susanna with her paramour. He answered, under a mastick 
tree, oyivov. Then Daniel forthwith, alluding to the name of the 
tree, subjoins, cyice: ce 0 Oeds. Afterwards he comes to the other, 
and asks him under what tree he had seen Susanna committing 
so foul a crime? He mentions a different tree, and says that 
it was under a holm-oak, wpivov. Then Daniel, using a similar 
play upon the name, brings in his judgment, apices ce 0 Oeos. 
This Greek etymology (for so Jerome calls it) shews that the 
history itself was written in the Greek language: for you will find 
no allusion of the kind in the corresponding Hebrew names and 
verbs. Therefore it was not written by Daniel, or any prophet. 

The papists object, that this argument was long ago answered 
by Origen in his Epistle to Julius Africanus, mentioned by Euse- 
bius!, who alleges that there were words in the Hebrew which 
contained plainly such an allusion, but that the Greek interpreter 
had changed the names to preserve the paronomasia. But nothing 
can be slighter or more futile than that conjecture. For, in the 
first place, though I confess that Origen did write about this mat- 
ter to Julius Africanus, yet what he wrote is not known. For the 
piece upon that subject which hath lately appeared hath not yet 
gained any clear credit. 

I ask, in the neat place, what are those Hebrew names of trees 
which will yield this allusion? a question which must needs bring 
them to a stand. 

Thirdly, the Holy Spirit does not use to affect this change of 
names, or put a force upon the truth of things, or alter their deno- 
minations, especially seeing that the refutation of the charge de- 
pends upon the very diversity of the names. For if they answered 
that they had seen Susanna under an oak or a fig, the story should 
not have been told as if they had said a mastick or a holm-tree, 
since that is not true in fact.  Effectually to discover the falsehood 
of these calumnies of the elders, the very names of the trees should 
have been preserved. 


ponere quod Origeni quoque Africanus opposuit, etymologias has dé rod 
oxivov oxica, kai ard Tov mpivov m pica, de Greeco sermone descendere.—Opp. 
T. 1x. 1364.] 
[! Hist. Eccl. vr. c. 31.] 
. [2 All doubts, however, were very soon removed by its publication in 
Greek by Heeschelius. August. Vindel. 1602. ] 


IX. | QUESTION THE FIRST. 79 


Fourthly, Y cannot understand how it should be taken for a 
solid proof of the falsehood of the charges, that because different 
trees were named by the elders, therefore it should be evident that 
Susanna was undeservedly accused. They might have said that 
they had not specially observed what kind of tree it was, and so 
might easily have been mistaken. They who were so wicked in 
devising the charge would not have been so stupid in proving it. 

Lastly, when they object to us in this cause so often the 
authority of Origen, let them attend to what Jerome hath 
written of him in the preface to Daniel. ‘I wonder,” says he, 
* that some querulous persons should be indignant at me, as if I 
had mutilated the book; whereas Origen, and Eusebius, and Apol- 
linarius, and other ecclesiastical men and the doctors of Greece, 
confess, as I have said, that these visions are not extant in the 
Hebrew, and declare that they are not bound to answer Porphyry 
in defence of things which have no authority of sacred scripture?." 
If that be true which Jerome writes of Origen, they have no 
reason to call Origen a patron of this history. For Origen together 
with the other Greek doctors expressly affirmed, if we believe 
Jerome, that these pieces were not extant in the Hebrew, nor pos- 
sessed the authority of sacred scripture. 

. In fine, the papists cannot agree amongst themselves who 
that Daniel was who was thrust into the lion's den for slaying 
the dragon and destroying Bel, and was suffered to remain there 
six days.  Bellarmine, after carefully weighing the whole matter, 
at length arrives at the conclusion, that this Daniel was not the 
same person as the distinguished prophet, but a different one. 
For the great prophet Daniel was of the tribe of Juda, as is 
manifest: but the Seventy, as Jerome testifies in the preface to 
Daniel, make that Daniel who had intercourse with Cyrus, a 
priest of the tribe of Levi; and the more learned papists think 
that this was the same Daniel who destroyed Bel and the dragon, 
and was preserved six days in the den of lions. Thus these 
things cannot be speciously defended, without introducing a second 
Daniel contrary to the common and general opinion. But what 
proof have we of the existence of such a Daniel? What credit 


[3 Et miror quasdam pepyipolpovs indignari mihi, quasi ego decurtaverim 
librum: quum et Origenes, et Eusebius, et Apollinarius, aliique ecclesiastici 
viri et doctores Greeciz has, ut dixi visiones non haberi apud Hebrzos fate- 
antur, nec se debere respondere Porphyrio pro his que nullam scripture 
sancte auctoritatem preebeant.—Hieronym, Opp. T. v. 619.] 


80 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


do the stories which the Seventy tell about this matter deserve? 
And if what is told in this fourteenth chapter was not done by 
that great Daniel, but by some other, why is it made a part 
of that Daniel? why said to be his, and attributed to him ? Let 
all, therefore, understand that the Daniel who subverted Bel, burnt 
the dragon, and remained six days in the den, was not that great 
Daniel whose prophetic book is extant, and worthy of all authority, 
and that by the confession of the papists themselves, but some 
other unknown, unheard of, and uncertain Daniel. But we have 
hitherto never heard of more prophets of the name of Daniel than 
one, and may therefore dismiss this second Daniel without further 
ceremony. 





CHAPTER X. 


OF THE BOOK OF TOBIT. 


ArTER having proved that those fragments which are stuck 
upon certain canonical books should be cut off, and plucked out 
from the body of sacred scripture, it follows now that we should 
treat of those six entire apocryphal books. 

And first let us consider the book of Tobit, for the authority of 
which the papists adduce no special argument whatsoever. For, 
though it be quoted by the fathers, it does not thence follow that 
it is a canonical book, as we have already clearly proved: and as 
to its being called “divine” by Ambrose, the meaning is not to 
teach us that the book is undoubtedly canonical and equal in every 
respect to those which really form part of the canon, but that it is 
a book by no means to be despised or esteemed lightly. For 
although it is not truly canonical, yet it may be styled divine, as it 
was wont to be read in the church, and was joined with the canoni- 
cal books in one volume, so as commonly to pass under the name 
of scripture. For that it is not properly canonical, we have shewn 
by many testimonies of the fathers, and can demonstrate by plain 
arguments. But here consider how the papists run into a clear 
contradiction. Bellarmine confesses that Jerome rejects this book, 
and the rest whieh are involved in the present controversy, from 
the canon of scripture; and pretends that it is no wonder he should 
do so, since no general council (which hath the regular privilege of 
determining and defining what should be deemed the canon of 
scripture) had decreed the canonicity of these books. Yet, in the 


x4 QUESTION THE FIRST. 81 


meanwhile, the papists bring testimonies from Irenszus, Cyprian, 
Hilary, Ambrose, to prove these books canonical. But how or by 
what authority could those fathers affirm these books to be canoni- 
cal, when that matter was not yet certain and clearly known, being 
as yet not decided by any general council? Therefore, either 
this is not the exclusive prerogative of a general council, or those 
fathers followed opinion rather than judgment and reason, when they 
received (as our opponents imagine) these books for canonical, which 
the church had not yet approved by its sanction and testimony. 
Let us now bring forward some objections against the authority 
of this book. And first, Jerome witnesses the judgment which the 
church of old passed upon this book. For he says, in the preface 
to the books of Solomon, that the church does not receive the 
book of Tobit into the canonical scriptures'. Therefore the catholic 
chureh (of which Jerome speaks) hath judged this book not to be 
canonical. And, in the prologue to the book of Tobit?, he wonders 
at the importunity of those by whom he had been induced to 
translate into the Latin tongue this book, which the Hebrews had 
cut off from the list of the divine scriptures, and which was only 
to be read in the Chaldee, a language with which he was unac- 
quainted. Wherefore he confesses that he had availed himself of 
the assistance of another, and had rendered in Latin words that 
which some unknown interpreter, skilled both in the Hebrew and 
Chaldee languages, had dictated to him in Hebrew. So that 
Jerome hath rather translated some other person’s version of this 
book than the book itself. Besides, the book is now extant only in 
Greek and Latin, and it is wholly uncertain in what language it 
was originally written. Jerome writes that he had seen a Chaldaic 
copy of it, but attributes to it no sort of authority. And the 
present copies of the book are exceeding various and corrupt, as 
may be easily detected by a collation of them. What more do we 


[! Judith, et Tobi, et Machabaeorum libros legit quidem ecclesia, sed inter 
canonicas scripturas non recipit. Hieronym. Opp. T. rx. 1296.] 

[^ Mirari non desino exactionis vestrze instantiam : exigitis enim ut librum 
Chaldzeo sermone conscriptum ad Latinum stylum traham, librum utique 
Tobie, quem Hebrzi de Catalogo divinarum scripturarum secantes, his que 
Apocrypha memorant, manciparunt ...... Utriusque lingue (Hebreeze et 
Chald:zeze) peritissimum loquacem inveniens, unius diei laborem arripui; et 
quidquid ille Hebraicis verbis expressit, hoc ego, aecito notario, sermonibus 
Latinis exposui.—Opp. T. x. 293. The common reading is Hagiographa for 
Apocrypha: but the correctness of the latter is so evident, that it is ad- 
mitted by the Benedictines and Vallarsius.] 


[ WHITAKER. | 6 


82 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


want? The book may speak for itself, the whole character of 
which shews, as clear as the light, that it hath no claims to 
canonicity. 





CHAPTER XI. 


OF THE BOOK OF JUDITH. 


Our adversaries snatch up an argument from Jerome in favour 
of this book, which goes under the name of Judith. For Jerome 
tells us, in the preface to the book of Judith, that this book was 
counted in the sacred scriptures by the Nicene synod!. Therefore, 
say they, Jerome himself testifies that this book at least is canonical. 
But this testimony injures our opponents’ cause more than it helps 
it. For first, if that synod received this book into the number of 
the sacred scriptures, it affected those others, which it omitted, 
with no slight prejudice. For if, as these men will have it, it 
determined this book to be canonical, why did it not comprehend 
the others also in the same decree, if they be really canonical? 

Secondly, Jerome's words are, “ We read that the synod of 
Nice counted this book in the number of sacred scriptures.” But 
where this is read, he tells us not. And if the Nicene synod 
had determined the canonicity of this book, the council of Laodicea, 
which was held a short time after that of Nice, would not have left 
it in the Apocrypha. And Erasmus hath rightly noted, that Jerome 
does not himself affirm that this book was counted sacred scripture 
by the council of Nice. 

Thirdly, * To be canonical scripture’ is one thing, and “to 
be counted in the number of sacred scripture” is another thing. 
For those pieces which are read along with the sacred scriptures 
for the edification of the people, although not for confirmation of 
doctrines, are counted in the number of sacred scriptures. And 


[1 Sed quia hune librum Synodus Nicena in numero sanctarum scrip- 
turarum legitur computasse, &c.—Opp. T. x. 22. Most critics suppose that 
the council of Nice in some of their documents had quoted some testimony 
from the book of Judith: but Vallarsius thinks it more probable that Jerome 
alludes to some spurious index of the scriptures, forged under the name of 
that council. He appeals, very properly, to Cassiodorus, Instit. Divin. Lit. 
c. 14, to shew that such indexes existed, and passed under the names of the 
councils of Nice and Chalcedon. ] 


XI. ] QUESTION THE FIRST. 83 


that this was the mind and meaning of Jerome, is plain from 
Jerome’s own words in the preface to the Proverbs. ‘The 
church,” says he, “reads this book, but does not receive it amongst 
the canonical scriptures?.” Although, therefore, this book be read, 
and counted in the number of sacred scriptures, yet is it not re- 
ceived amongst those scriptures which are canonical and sacred in 
the highest sense. This Jerome asserts in plain words; but this 
he would never have asserted, if the council of Nice had determined 
this book to be canonical. Nay, in this very preface Jerome 
shews this book not to be canonical by two arguments :—first, be- 
cause the Hebrews esteem it apocryphal, and unfit for confirm- 
ing anything which may be called in question’: secondly, because 
the book was written in the Chaldee language, and the copies of it 
grossly corrupted and depraved. For which reason Jerome, in 
translating it, gave the general sense rather than the exact mean- 
ing of each word, and only rendered into Latin what he found un- 
corrupted in the Chaldee*, Now, however, even those Chaldee 
copies themselves have perished; and the Greek ones differ widely 
from Jerome's version. Besides, Josephus, in his commentaries 
upon the Jewish antiquities, does not touch at all upon this story 
of Judith,—a sufficient proof that Josephus did not consider it 
canonical. | 

But now let us estimate the authority of this book by the 
evidence of the book itself, and briefly examine what the times 
were of which it professes to be the history. For the opinions of 
authors upon this subject are various; nor is it needful that we 
should enumerate them particularly. Let us hear, then, the de- 
terminations of those who at present sway the Romish schools. 
Sixtus Senensis (Lib. vir. Her. 11) writes, that he who is called 
Nabuchodonosor was Ahasuerus, the son of Darius Hystaspes, 
and that he reigned in Babylon after Cyrus was slain. But no 
Persian emperor was called Nabuchodonosor; and the Persian 
kings fixed the seat of their empire not at Nineve but at Babylon. 


[? Vide supra, p. 81.] 

[3 Apud Hebrzos liber Judith inter Apocrypha legitur: cujus auctoritas 
ad roboranda illa que in contentionem veniunt minus idonea judicatur. 
Chaldzo tamen sermone conscriptus, inter historias computatur.—Opp. T. x. 
p. 22.] 

[4 Magis sensum e sensu, quam ex verbo verbum transferens. Multorum 
codieum varietatem vitiosissimam amputavi: sola ea, que intelligentia integra 
in verbis Chaldzis invenire potui, Latinis expressi. Ibid.] 

6—2 


84 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


But he who sent Holofernes with an army to subdue the world, is 
called in the first chapter of this book Nabuchodonosor, and is said 
to have reigned at Nineve. There are many other incongruities 
besides, so that Bellarmine refers this history to the times of Ma- 
nasseh, whom Nabuchodonosor took captive, brought to Babylon, 
and after a long while set at liberty. He supposes, therefore, that 
these events happened a little after the return of Manasseh, fol- 
lowing Melchior Canus, (Lib. rm. c. 16): which opinion (although 
repugnant to that of all his predecessors, as Eusebius in his Chro- 
nicon, Augustine, Philo, Bede, Lyra, Driedo and others,) seems yet 
much more probable than that of the rest, since it is certain that 
there was no Nabuchodonosor in existence after the Babylonian cap- 
tivity. But now let us sift this hypothesis, and prove that these 
things could not have been done even in the time of Manasseh. 

First, in the beginning of the fifth chapter, when Holofernes 
perceives that the Jewish people were meditating and preparing war, 
he convokes all his officers and asks them what people this was, 
and who was their leader. But if Manasseh had been only a short 
time before taken captive by the king of the Chaldeans, and carried 
into Babylon, neither Holofernes nor the Chaldeans could have 
been so ignorant who was their king as to be forced to seek and 
obtain information upon this subject from Achior the Ammonite. 
For they are made to inquire concerning the people, the country, 
the cities, the power of the inhabitants, their mode of warfare, 
their leader and king, as if they had never heard of such a nation 
as the Jews. But the Chaldeans had before then made war upon 
this people, wasted Judea, taken Jerusalem, and carried away with 
them Manasseh into Babylon. Therefore these things about which 
they now inquire could not have been unknown to them. 

Secondly, when Holofernes came into Judea, the temple was 
overthrown. For these are the very words of Achior, in the 
Greek text: 'O vacs Tov OeoU avtwy eryevnOn eis ados kat at 
modes avTGv expatyOncav. ‘The temple of the Jews at Jeru- 
salem was overturned and rased to the ground, and their cities 
occupied.” But in the captivity of Manasseh there was no sub- 
version of the temple, nor was the temple levelled to the ground 
. before the reign of Zedekiah, in which (as everybody knows) the 
great captivity took place. 

Thirdly, if these things had happened in the time of Manasseh 
and after his return, the Jewish people would not have treated 
the messengers of the king of Babylon so shamefully, or dismissed 


xi] QUESTION THE FIRST. 85 


them so ignominiously, as we are told they did in the first chapter. 
For the Jews had then experienced both the power and the cle- 
mency of the Babylonians. 

Fourthly, in the history of the Kings, in which the acts of 
Manasseh are written, we read nothing of this kind about Holo- 
fernes; which being a thing of such a remarkable character, it is 
surprising that the Holy Spirit should have omitted to mention it. 

Fifthly, in the last chapter we read that Judith lived more 
than 105 years, and that while Judith lived, after this victory no 
enemy troubled Israel. This peace, therefore, lasted many years. 
But now, when Holofernes was in Juda, Judith had not passed 
the flower of her age; for she was very beautiful, and she pleased 
Holofernes, and is called a girl, chap. xii.: so that, after this 
vietory, there must have been peace for near a hundred years. 
For the peace is said to have subsisted many years, both during her 
life and after she was dead. But Amon succeeded Manasseh, and 
reigned two years; Josiah succeeded Amon, and held the sove- 
reignty thirty-one years. After the death of Josiah, a mighty mass 
of trouble fell upon the state, which could not be allayed until it 
was entirely subverted, and the people carried into captivity. How 
can we assign that long peace to such times as these ? 

Sixthly, I should wish to know, (for I am by no means dis- 
posed to think itj) whether there was any Nabuchodonosor in 
Manasseh’s time. For Nabuchodonosor the first, whose son was 
the second and great Nabuchodonosor, began to reign with Josiah, 
who was 33 years later than Manasseh. Before him, if we believe 
history, no Nabuchodonosor reigned either at Nineve or Babylon. 
For, as to the allegation that all the kings of the Babylonians were 
called Nabuchodonosor, I grant it to have been so after that great 
Nabuchodonosor, whose greatness was the cause that this name 
became hereditary in the line of Babylonian kings: but there is 
no evidence that they all went by that name before him. 

We have now shewn plainly enough that this history does not 
suit the times of Manasseh. And the argument which led Bellar- 
mine to cast it in those times is utterly destitute of force. Eliakim, 
says he, was at this time high priest, as he is called in the fifteenth 
chapter of Judith; and in the time of Hezekiah there was a 
certain Eliakim priest, the son of Hilkiah. But Bellarmine did 
not observe that that Eliakim, who is mentioned in the history of 
Hezekiah, was not a priest, but a certain officer, of the tribe of 
Judah and the family of David, as appears from Isai xxii. and 


86 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. - [ on. 


2 Kings xvii. For he succeeded Shebna, who was either the royal 
scribe, as some render it, or the chancellor, as others, or the master 
of the royal household, as others; but who neither was, nor could 
have been, a priest. Josephus, in the last book of his Jewish 
antiquities, gives a list of all the pontiffs of the Jews, from Aaron 
down to the last, yet names no Eliakim or Joakim about these 
times. You see what sort of foundation Bellarmine had for his 
opinion concerning the history of Judith. 

Genebrard, in his Chronology, (Lib. m. anno mundi 35601) 
assigns the date of this history otherwise, but much more rashly. 
For he says this was the same Nabuchodonosor, who subdued 
Zedekiah, took Jerusalem, and carried the people into captivity ; 
that he sent Holofernes into Judea in the 13th year of his reign, 
and in the 19th transferred the remainder of the Jews to Babylon. 
But Genebrard hath not made a correct distribution of the times. 
For how can it be truly said that Judith lived so long after 
that calamity, and that peace subsisted during her life and a long 
time after it? Or how could the Chaldeans have failed. to be 
thoroughly acquainted with the people and king of the Jews, when 
Nabuchodonosor had, but a little before, made Zedekiah himself 
king of the Jews? No time, therefore, can be found, which suits 
with these transactions. For it is manifest that none of these 
three opinions is true, and our adversaries can invent none truer 
than these. 





CHAPTER XII. 


‘OF THE BOOK OF WISDOM. 


WE have now to treat of those two books, whereof one is 
called the Wisdom of Solomon, the other Ecclesiasticus ; which 
pieces we deny not to be replete with very beautiful admonitions, 
precepts, and sentiments, yet maintain to be deservedly placed 
amongst the apocryphal scriptures by our churches. Besides the 
common arguments, which we have often answered already, our 
adversaries allege one peculiar to the case of that book which is 
called the Wisdom of Solomon. They pretend that the apostle 
Paul hath used the testimony of this book, Rom. xi. 34, where he 
says, Tis éyvw voov Kvptov, 7 Tis ovuDovAos avo éryévero; “ Who 


[! p. 236. Paris. 1600.] 


Xu. | QUESTION THE FIRST. 87 


hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his coun- 
sellor ?” Likewise that the expression, Heb. i. 3, ** Who, being the 
brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,” is 
borrowed from the seventh chapter of this book. 

As to the first place, I answer: The apostle does not intimate 
that he is there citing any testimony. For there is no consequence 
in the reasoning, that, because similar words to those are found in 
this place, therefore the apostle quoted this place. And even if 
the apostle recited the words of some prophetic scripture, or alluded 
to some scripture, we are not therefore obliged to suppose that it 
was to this place in Wisdom. For the same sentiment is found in 
Isaiah xl. 13, in these words: “ Who hath directed the Spirit of 
the Lord, or, being his counsellor, hath taught him?” &e. Thus 
Thomas Aquinas, in his fifth lecture upon Rom. xi. says, that the 
apostle here brings in the authority of Isaiah?. So also Cajetan, 
and our countrymen the Rhemist interpreters, in their English: 
version. Add to this, that, whereas there have been various 
indexes of testimonies cited out of the old Testament in the new, 
drawn up by many persons, and placed in various editions of the 
Bible, no one of these exhibits any testimony from this book of 
Wisdom, and all refer this citation by name to Isaiah?. 

As to the second place, the apostle makes no citation, as is 
evident. For what though some words be found in the book of 
Wisdom not unlike those wherein the apostle describes the person 
of Christ? For indeed it cannot be said that the words are iden- 
tically the same, but only that they are similar. So that this 
argument has but weak force to prove the canonical authority 
of this book. But now we, on the other hand, will produce some 
considerations which may shew that the book is apocryphal. We 
concede indeed, with Epiphanius, that it is a useful book; but we 
add also with Epiphanius, that “it is not referred to the number 
of the canonical scriptures :” which assertion he extends also to the 
following one. 

First, this book, as all allow, was written in Greek, and that, as 
hath already been proved, is sufficient to exclude it from the canon. 

Secondly, Jerome, in the Preface to Proverbs, says of these 
two books, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus: ‘‘ These two volumes one 
may read indeed for the edification of the people, but not to 


[? T. xvi. p. 37. 2. Opp. Venet. 1593.] 


[? It is in fact the Sept. translation of that passage, with only the varia- 
tion of 4) for xai.] 


88 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. . Ten. 


confirm the authority of the dogmas of the church!." Where also 
he calls the book pseudepigraphal?, so as that, although it goes 
under the name of Solomon, it is not to be supposed to be really 
his; and observes that it “ savours of Grecian eloquence.” 

Thirdly, most of the ancients determine that this book was 
written by Philo, who certainly neither was a prophet, nor could 
have written a canonical book of the old Testament. For he 
lived after Christ in the time of Caligula, before whom he dis- 
charged his celebrated embassy on behalf of the Jews. But then 
the time of the old Testament had already passed; and Christ 
says, * The law and the prophets were until John the Daptist." 
For the conjecture of some, and Bellarmine among the rest, that 
there was some other Jewish Philo, is grounded upon no testimony 
of antiquity, and is rejected by Sixtus Senensis, (Lib. vii. c. 9), and 
is at variance with the general opinion of the doctors. For thus 
writes Bonaventura in his Commentary upon this book: * The 
first efficient cause, in the way of a compiler, was Philo the wisest 
of the Jews?." So that he determines it to have been written by 
Philo, not by Solomon. But by what. Philo? By any other than 
him who flourished after Christ, and wrote so many pieces with 
so much eloquence? of whom some one said, 7 IlAavev QuXw- 
viCet, 7 Ov m Xa rovite. Bonaventura subjoins, * who lived 
in the times of the apostles.” It is evident therefore what Philo he 
supposed the author of this book. For he recognised no other 
Philo; and he tells us that the same was said by Rabanus. For 
Josephus, in his first book against Apion, names a certain older 
Philo, but one who was a Gentile and a philosopher, not a Jew 
or conversant with the scriptures®. Wherefore, since this book was 


[! Hsc duo ecclesia legat ad edificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem 
ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam. T. 1x. 1296.] 

[? Alius srevOezéypaQos, qui Sapientia Salomonis inscribitur ......... et 
ipse stylus Greecam eloquentiam redolet; et nonnulli veterum scriptorum 
hune esse Judei Philonis affirmant. T. 1x. 1295.— Hence some have en- 
deavoured to explain how it came to be attributed to Solomon, Philo's name 
in Hebrew being Jedidiah.] 

[? Proxima causa efficiens per modum compilantis fuit Philo sapientissimus 
Judzorum, qui temporibus apostolorum fuit. Opp. T. 1. p. 341. Lugd. 1668.] 

[* Hieronym. in Catal. sub voc. Puino. Photius. Cod. CV. Suidas, Voc. 
Dror, &c.] 

[5 *O pévroe Badrnpeds Anpunrpios kai Birrtov 6 mpeoBurepos kai EvmóAepos 
ov 7TOÀv Ths adnOeias Sujpaproy ois ovyywockew ü£iov: ov yap éviy avrois pera 
maons axpiBelas rois terépors ypaupaot mapakoAovbciv.— Josephus, c. PIU: 
Lib. I. c. 23. p. 458. ed. Haverc.] 


XII. | QUESTION THE FIRST. 89 


written by that Philo the Jew in the time of the apostles, it cannot 
be by any means canonical. For if Philo were a true prophet, 
or imbued with the prophetic spirit, why did he not receive Christ? 
Why not believe the gospel? Why was he a stranger to the 
apostles? Why are not his other books had in similar honour ? Cer- 
tainly none of the ancients ever said that this Philo was a Christian. 
How then, after Christ, should a man who was not a Christian have 
written a book worthy to be classed amongst the canonical books 
of the old Testament? But the most learned of the papists them- 
selves allow that the book was not written by Solomon, so that 
that point needs not our confirmation. For if Solomon had written 
this book, it would not have been written in Greek but in He- 
brew, as the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song. But, as to 
the notion of some, who make Solomon the author of this book, 
because Solomon is introduced in chap. ix. making prayers and 
vows, it has no argumentative validity whatsoever. For that might 
have been done in the way of imitation by the writer whoever he 
might be: so that they who argue thence that Solomon must have 
been the writer himself, are grievously deceived. Jodocus Clito- 
veus and Sixtus Senensis are chargeable with this ignorance and 
error. But, with better reason, John Driedo (Lib. 1. ec. 4, ad 4". 
difficult.*) concludes that this book was not written by Solomon, 
and says that the manner of scripture requires, that he who speaks 
should speak in the person of another. So John Capistranus, 
in the preface to his Speculum Clericorum, says that Philo speaks 
in the person of Solomon’. 

Fourthly, the church in old times judged no otherwise of this 
book than Jerome and we do; and this may be collected even from 
Augustine, whom our adversaries name upon their side. For in his 
book de Predestinatione Sanctorum, c. 14, when he had cited a 
testimony from the book of Wisdom, chap. 4, * Speedily was he 
taken away, lest that wiekedness should alter his understanding ;" 
many pious and catholic brethren cried out against him that the 
book was not canonical’. Andradius, in his Defence of the Council 
of Trent, (Lib. rr.) attacks Chemnitz for using this place and tes- 
timony out of Augustine with many reproaches, in which attack 


[6 pp. 41. 42. De Eccl. Script. Lovain. 1533.) 

[7 Et cum Philone in persona Salomonis divinum presidium... . in- 
vocabo. p. 2. Venet. 1580.] 

[5 Quod a me quoque positum fratres istos ita respuisse dixistis, tanquam 
non de libro canonico adhibitum.—Opp. T. x. p. 807. Par. 1690.] 


90 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ OH. 


Bellarmine also joins (Lib. 1. c. 12), but unreasonably. For, what- 
ever may have been Augustine’s own opinion of this book, yet it is 
evident that others did not think it canonical, and that their judg- 
ment was the received opinion of those churches. Nor does Augus- 
tine contend very anxiously or earnestly for the authority of the 
book: he only says that it is not “to be despised,” since it had 
been so long read with great reverence in the church, and that it 
was “to be preferred to all the treatises of discoursers};” which may 
perhaps be conceded to him. But if Augustine had thought that the 
book was certainly canonical, he would never have been so slack 
and cool in defending its authority, but would have blamed with 
much severity those who rejected the book as utterly without claims 
to a place in the canon. In truth, what he hath written upon this 
subject is much more intended to screen himself from odium than to 
fortify the authority of this book. But we understand already that 
the book is not canonical, and we want nothing more. 





CHAPTER XIII. 
OF THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTICUS. 


Our adversaries can allege no special argument in behalf of 
this book; and we need not repeat our answers to the common 
ones. Let us, on our side, bring some proofs to shew that the 
book is not canonical. First, we may collect that this book is 
not canonical from the fact of its having been written in Greek, 
upon the principles already explained. The grandfather of Jesus 
had written some things in Hebrew, which this Jesus translated 
into the Greek language, as we read in the prologue?. But the 
Hebrew original itself, when it was extant, never possessed a 
prophetic credit or authority, and hath now entirely disappeared ; 
so that now nothing remains but Jesus’ Greek version, which is full 
of many faults and blemishes. Nor was this Jesus anything more 
than a mere translator. 

Secondly, how highly this translator thought of himself and 
his own version, appears plainly from his own words and confession 
in the prologue. He says, that the Hebrew cannot be exactly 
rendered into Greek: (why so?) and he asks pardon, if he should 

[1 Vide supra, p. 76.] 

[2 *O mámmos pov Incods .... mponxOn kai abrós ovyypaya rt r&v. els madelav 
«ai copiay ávgkóvrov. Prolog. in Sapient. Jesu fil. Sirach.] 


XIII. | QUESTION THE FIRST. | 91 


seem in some places to fail of an adequate power of expression?. 
By all which he sufficiently proves that he is neither a prophet 
nor endowed with a prophetic spirit. For the Holy Spirit asks 
pardon of no one, hesitates not in the choice of words, and ever 
reaches the mark he aims at; especially if the writer apply due 
diligence, as this author professes that he hath. 

Lastly, what is written of Samuel in this book, chap. 49*, is 
taken variously and doubtfully by many, as we see from Augus- 
tine (ad Simplicianum, Lib. 11. quest. 3, and de Cura pro mortuis, 
cap. 15). For the passage, 1 Sam. 28, is rather to be understood 
of a diabolical spectre; since the souls of the saints cannot be 
evoked by magical arts or incantations. Wherefore Augustine 
(De Doctr. Chr. Lib. rr. c. 23?) says, “that the image of the dead 
Samuel gave a true prediction to Saul.” Where he indicates that 
it was not Samuel himself, but an image or semblance of Samuel, 
that conversed with Saul. The same father, in his book de Octo 
Dulcit. Quest. (quest. 6), after disputing somewhat on the other 
side of this question, at last subjoins: “‘ However there is in this 
matter a readier way of escaping difficulty, and more easy view of 
the meaning of the passage, if we suppose that it was not really the 
spirit of Samuel that was roused from its repose, but some phantom 
and imaginary illusion produced by diabolical devices: which the 
scripture therefore calls by the name of Samuel, because images 
are wont to be called by the names of those things of which they 
are images.” And so in the sequel he concludes that “the scrip- 
ture says that Samuel appeared, even though, perchance, it was 
the image of Samuel shewn by the devices of him who transforms 
himself into an angel of light, and his ministers as the ministers 
of righteousness®.” Likewise in his treatise de Mirabilib. Scripturze 


[8 IIapakékAga6e .... avyyvopgv eyew ef ois àv Soxdpev TrÓv» Kata THY 
Epunvelay meirorovnpévoy tict T&v Aéfeov dOvvauetv: ov yàp laoÓvvapei avrà 
ev éavrois "EfBpaiari Xeyóueva, kai orav perayO7 els érépav yAàocav. Tbid.] 

[4 xlvi. 20. Kat pera vÓó tmvdca abróv émpodwrevoev. The Church of 
England omits this verse in reading Ecclus. xlvi. as the evening lesson for 
November 16. ] 

[5 Non enim, quia imago Samuelis mortui Sauli regi vera prenuntiavit, 
propterea talia sacrilegia, quibus imago illa presentata est, minus exsecranda 
sunt.] 

[$5 Quanquam in hoc facto est alius facilior exitus et expeditior intellectus, 
ut non vere spiritum Samuelis excitatum a requie sua credamus, sed aliquod 
phantasma et imaginariam illusionem diaboli machinationibus factam: quam 
propterea scriptura nomine Samuelis appellat, quia solent imagines earum 


.92 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


(Lib. m. e. 11),—if that book deserves to be reckoned a genuine 
piece of Augustine’s—he writes in this manner: “ Whence from the 
fact itself we may the more readily understand that this was not 
the prophet Samuel, but that the devil, who transforms himself into 
an angel of light, is considered in the phantastic form of Samuel. 
This appears from his discourse, since he tells Saul, who was an 
execrable man, ‘Thou and thy sons shall be with me^ Surely, if 
it had been the true Samuel who was here exhibited, he would 
never have said that this unjust king would be a participator of his 
reward after death!" And most plainly in his book of Questions 
on the old and new Testaments, in the seven and twentieth 
question, he determines thus: “I deem it a most unworthy act 
io repose belief in this narrative in the strict literal sense of it. 
For how is it possible that a man holy in his birth and righteous 
in his actions when alive should be dragged up by magie arts? or, 
if not dragged up, should have consented to them ? Either alter- 
native we can not without absurdity believe of a just man?2," To 
say that the soul of the holy prophet was troubled by the spells of 
witches, even Isidore himself detests as impious, as we see in Gra- 
tian (26 quest. 5. cap. Nec. Mirum.); and he says that this was 
* a piece of Satan’s jugglery?." Augustine too, in his book de 
Cura pro Mortuis (c. 15.5), bears witness that many thought that it 


rerum nominibus appellari quarum imagines sunt.... Non mirum est quod 
scriptura dicit Samuelem visum, etiam si forte imago Samuelis apparuit ma- 
chinamento ejus qui transfigurat se velut angelum lucis, et ministros suos 
velut ministros justiti:se.— The treatise De vir. Dulcitii queestionibus is the 
fourth piece in T. vr. of the Benedictine edition, Paris, 1679.] 

.[! Unde non hune esse Samuelem illum Prophetam per factum facilius 
intelligitur, sed diabolus qui se transfert in angelum lucis, in phantasia 
Samuelis consideretur. Quod ex sermonibus ejus recte dignoscitur, quoniam 
funesto Sauli dicebat, Tu et filii tui mecum eritis. Etenim si verus hie 
Samuel ostensus esset, nullo modo iniquum regem consortem sui meriti post 
mortem diceret.—This spurious work is to be found in the Appendix to Part 
1. of T. irr. of the Benedictine edition. The author is supposed to have been 
an Irish monk, named Augustine.] 

[2 Indignum facinus sestimo, si secundum verba historis commendetur 
assensus. Quomodo enim fieri potuerat, ut arte magica attraheretur vir et 
nativitate sanctus et vite operibus justus? aut, si non attractus est, consensit ? 
quod utrumque de viro justo credere absurdum est.—This is also a spurious 
piece; it is the third in the Appendix referred to in the last note.] 

[3 Porro autem hoc est preestigium Satanz. Decreti Pars Secund. Caus. 
26. Quest. 5. c. 14.] 

- [4 It is the nineteenth piece in Tom. vr. of the Benedictine edition.] 


XIII. | QUESTION THE FIRST. 93 


was not Samuel himself, but an evil spirit. And concerning the 
book of Eeclesiasticus his expression is®: “ But if this book be 
objected to on account of the Hebrew canon which does not give 
it a place, what shall we say of Moses?" He concedes therefore 
that this book is open to objections. So Aquinas (1 p. 89. 4. 8. 
Art. ad 2™.) gives three answers to this place: 1. That Samuel 
appeared by a divine revelation. 2. Or, that the apparition was 
produced by demons. 3. Or, that the authority of Ecclesiasticus 
must not be admitted by reason that it is not esteemed by the 
Hebrews a portion of the canonical scriptures. 





CHAPTER XIV. 


OF THE BOOKS OF MACCABEES. 


BssrpEs those common pleas, upon which we have already 
said enough and answered sufficiently, our opponents adduce two 
arguments to establish the authority of these books. The first is, 
that they are placed by Clement in the canon of sacred scripture, 
as appears in the last of the apostolie canons. The second is the 
testimony of Augustine, in his City of God, (Lib. xvii. c. 36), which 
is to this effect : ** These books not the Jews, but the Church hold 
to be canonical." A similar testimony is found also in his second 
book against the Epistles of Gaudentius, cap. 237. Hence they 
conclude that these books are truly and properly canonical. I 
proceed to return a brief answer to both allegations. 

To the former I reply, in the first place, that we have already 
shewn what should be thought of that book of apostolie canons, and 
have stripped it of the name and authority of the apostles*. In 
the second place, I am surprised that Bellarmine should choose to 
avail himself of such a witness, whose evidence he must know 


[5 Sed si huie libro ex Hebrzorum, quia in eo non est, canone contra- 
dicitur, quid de Mose dicturi sumus ?—Id. ibid. ] 

[6 The whole passage upon which Whitaker reasons in his reply is as 
follows: Ab hoe tempore apud Judzeos restituto templo non reges sed prin- 
cipes fuerunt, usque ad Aristobulum: quorum supputatio temporum non in 
scripturis sanctis, quee canonice appellantur, sed in aliis invenitur; in quibus 
sunt et Machabeorum libri; quos non Judei, sed ecclesia pro canonicis habet 
propter quorundam martyrum passiones vehementes atque mirabiles. ] 

[7 It is the last piece in T. 1x. of the Benedictine edition, where this 
passage stands. Lib. 1. $ 38. p. 655.] [8 Supra, p. 42.] 


94 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


very well to make much more against the cause which he defends 
than it weighs in favour of these particular books. For, except 
these books of Maccabees, that apostolical canon recites none of 
all those pieces which our churches hold apocryphal, amongst the 
canonical books of the old Testament. If, therefore, this aposto- 
lical canon hath made these books canonical, it hath certainly left 
the rest in the class of apocryphal and spurious. Let the papists 
consider, whether they would choose that these books should be 
received on condition that all the others be excluded. Besides, in 
this apostolical canon three books of Maccabees are recited, whereas 
the papists allow only two of them to be canonicall. If then 
they rely on the authority of these canons to prove the canonicity 
of two books, what are they to determine concerning the third? 
They must consequently give up the argument derived from these 
canons, and Bellarmine hath acted discreetly in omitting it in the 
edition published by Sartorius. 

I come now to the testimonies of Augustine. And, first, to the 
former from the City of God, Lib. xvi. c. 36. How Augustine 
calls these and the other books canonical, by a certain common 
use of that term in a loose sense, hath been already explained. 
The Jews did not hold these books canonical; for they were of 
no account whatever amongst them. But the christian church 
may be said to hold them canonical, forasmuch as they are read in 
the church, and held in some value, although they are not ad- 
mitted to an equal authority and credit with the rest. This we 
may learn from Augustine himself, who writes thus in that very 
same passage: “The calculation of which times is not to be found 
in the sacred scriptures which are called canonical, but in others, 
amongst which are also the books of Maccabees.” Then follow the 
words upon which the argument is founded. Now in these words 
of Augustine two things present themselves which deserve notice. 
The first, that these. books are not, in truth and fact, sacred and 
canonical, The other, that they are nevertheless held canonical 
in the church,—that is, read publicly, set forth, and esteemed of 
great value in the church. Augustine subjoins the reason when - 
he says, “on account of the violent and admirable sufferings of 
certain martyrs.” Does he not in these words sufficiently shew 
that Christians were led to ascribe so much importance to these 
books on this account, because in them mention was made of cer- 


[1 There is some reason for believing the words Maxkkafltev rpía to be an 
interpolation. See Cosin’s Scholast. Hist. p. 30. Beverege’s Annotations, 
pp. 5, 39, and Gibbings's Roman Forgeries, pp. 113, 114.] 


XIV. | QUESTION THE FIRST. 95 


tain martyrs who fell in the cause of religion with the utmost 
fortitude and constancy? On this account Nazianzen hath pro- 
nounced a most beautiful panegyric upon that mother and her 
seven sons”. But in what sense can it be said that a book is 
held canonical on account of this or that? For a book which 
is truly canonical is to be received absolutely and entirely, not on 
account of this or that part or reason. Augustine says, in the City 
of God, Lib. 1. e. 20: * Nor is it in vain, that nowhere in the 
sacred canonical scriptures do we find any divine precept or per- 
mission to take away our own lives*.” In these books if not a 
precept, at least a permission for a man to take his own life, is 
to be detected. For in 1 Mace. chap. vi. Eleasar is praised for 
voluntarily rushing upon death. And in 2 Mace. chap. xiv., the 
fortitude of Razis is commended, who laid violent hands upon 
himself. Yet Razis deserved no praise for his fortitude. For 
this was to die cowardly rather than courageously, to put him- 
self voluntarily to death in order to escape from the hands of a 
tyrant. The Holy Spirit judges not of valour by the same mea- 
sures as profane men, who extol Cato to the skies for committing 
suicide lest he should fall into the power and hands of Cesar: 
for he either feared, or could not bear to see him, or sought to 
catch renown by an act of such prodigious horror. Thus he was 
crushed and extinguished either by despair, or grief, or some other 
perturbation of mind; any of which motives are foreign from true 
fortitude. Rightly, therefore, did Augustine deny those books to 
be canonical, in which such a crime is narrated with some com- 
mendation by the authors. 

The second testimony of Augustine occurs Lib. rm. e. 23; 
where also Augustine opposes our adversaries more than he favours 
them. For he requires that * the book should be read and heard 
with sobriety.” Say you so? What, I pray, do these words mean, 
. “not unprofitably, if done soberly?” Is there ground to fear that 
scripture may be read unprofitably ? And what is this sobriety 
which he demands in the perusal of these books? Every thing, 
indeed, should be read soberly; no one doubts that; and rash- 
ness should always be avoided. But if Augustine had meant that 
sobriety which is everywhere required in all scriptures, he would 
not have peculiarly prescribed that caution to the readers of this 


[2 Inter Opp. Gregorii Nazianzen. T. 1. p. 397. Colon. 1690.] 
[3 Neque enim frustra in sanctis canonicis libris nusquam nobis divinitus 
preceptum permissumve reperitur, ut nobismet ipsis necem inferamus.] 


96 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


book. The meaning, therefore, is, that there are some things in 
the book which, if they be examined by the strict rule of faith, 
cannot be defended, and therefore are not fit models for imitation ; 
and that consequently the book requires to be read soberly. This 
is moreover to be noted, that Augustine writes in that same place, 
that Christ does not bear testimony to these books as his witnesses ; 
which sufficiently shews that Augustine did not deem these books 
truly canonical. 

These matters being thus explained, let us now adduce our ar- 
guments against the authority of these books. 

First, Jerome, in his catalogue of illustrious men', and in his 
second book against Pelagius?, says that Josephus was the author 
of these books. Now Josephus was no prophet, and lived after 
Christ and beyond the limits of the old Testament; for which 
reasons he could not have written any book belonging to the 
canon of the old Testament. Others, although they do not think 
Josephus the author of these books, yet allow that the chronology 
in them was supplied by Josephus; in consequence of which the 
books became apocryphal, because the dates in these books do 
not agree. So the popish writer Annius? delivers his opinion, 
upon the Second book of Philo’s Chronology. 

Secondly, these books are expressly styled apocryphal by 
Gregory the Great, who was Pope of Rome, in his Morals, Lib. xix. 
c. 16. These are his words: * We shall not transgress the due 
bounds of order, if we produce a testimony upon this subject from 
books, not indeed canonical, yet set forth for the edification of the 
Church*" Then he cites a passage from the Maccabees. There- 
fore, before Gregory, that is, within six hundred years after Christ, 
the Church did not esteem the Books of Maccabees canonical. 


[1 Alius quoque liber ejus, qui inscribitur wept abrokpáropos Aoywrpo, 
valde elegans habetur, in quo et Machabseorum sunt digesta martyria. Cap. 
xir. Opp. T. 11. 837.] 

[2 Unde et Josephus, Machabeorum scriptor historiz, frangi et regi posse 
dixit perturbationes anime, non eradieari. Ibid. 735.— The reader must be 
reminded, that neither this, nor the preceding passage, mean anything like © 
what Whitaker supposes; the piece attributed to Josephus being, not the 
books of Maecabees commonly so called, but a discourse or oration on the 
Maccabees, which may be found in his works. ] 

[3 Josephus tempora adjiciens apocryphas reddidit. ^ Annii Viteberg. 
Antiquitt. ap. Ascenscium. 1512. Fol. ci.] 

[4 De qua re non inordinate agimus, si ex libris non canonicis, sed tamen 
ad sedificationem ecclesize editis, testimonium proferamus. ] 


xiv.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 97 


Hence we see clearly what we should think of pope Innocent and 
Augustine. They call these books canonical; Gregory denies them 
to be such. They and he, therefore, without doubt used that term 
in different senses. The same judgment on these books is passed 
by Eusebius (Lib. de Temp.)5, Richard of S. Victor. (Except. Lib. rr. 
c. 9)§, and Occam (3 Part. Dial. Tract. 1. Lib. rr. c. 16). 

Thirdly, in 2 Mace. chap. xu., Judas Maccabzus is praised for 
offering sacrifice for the dead. Whereas he really deserved no praise 
on that account, since God had commanded the making of no such 
sacrifice. Now, whatever is done in religious service without divine 
precept, is displeasing to God, and deserves not praise, but blame; and 
all sorts of will-worship were ever condemned in scripture. But upon 
this whole matter and argument we shall have to speak hereafter. 

Fourthly, that sacrifice was offered for men who had brought 
themselves under the guilt and pollution of idolatry and sacrilege, 
and had perished in that crime, as we read in the twelfth chapter. 
For the soldiers of Judas had plundered some things consecrated 
to the Jamnite idols, and had hidden these offerings under their 
clothes; which, when they were slain, were discovered under their 
vesture. And this author says it was a clear case that they had 
fallen on account of that crime. Now the papists themselves allow 
that no sacrifice should be offered for persons guilty of such idolatry 
and sacrilege: for this was a mortal sin; and they tell us them- 
selves that for those who are certainly in mortal sin, as the author 
affirms these men to have been, no sacrifice should be made. For 
—as to the pretence which Bellarmine has borrowed from Lyra, 
that Judas piously supposed that they had repented of their sin in 
the very article of death—not to mention that it rests wholly upon 
a dim surmise, yet, however probable it may have been that they 
had grieved in death for their offence, a public sacrifice should 
never have been offered for persons of this sort, who had polluted 
themselves with idolatry, unless there were certain proof of their 
true repentance. 

[5 Machabeorum Historia hine supputat regnum Graecorum. Verum hi 
libri inter divinas scripturas non recipiuntur. P. 348, ed. Majo. et Zohrab. 
Mediol. 1818.] 

[$ Alii non habentur in canone, tamen leguntur. Hisunt..... Libri 
Machabzeorum. Deinde sanctorum patrum scripta, &c. Opp. Ven. 1592. 

| Sak) 
; [7 Secundum Hieronymum ....Libri.... Machabseorum.... non sunt 


recipiendi ad confirmandum aliquid in fide. Dialog. Guil. Ockam. Lugd. 
1495. Fol. cexii. 2.] 
7 


[ WHITAKER. |] 


98 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


Fifthly, the Holy Spirit is not accustomed to epitomize the 
history of a profane author. But the Second Book of Maccabees, 
as we read in chap. ii., is a contraction of the five volumes of Jason 
of Cyrene, comprising in one little book what Jason had minutely 
detailed in five. Who that Jason was is uncertain. <A prophet he 
was not: that no one ever said, or could say. Consequently this 
synopsis of Jason’s history, composed in such a manner, cannot be 
counted part of the canonical scriptures. 

Sixthly, in 2 Mace. chap. ii. we have a long narrative about the 
sacred fire, the ark, the tabernacle, and the altar, which are said 
there to have been hidden in a certain mountain and laid up by 
Jeremiah. Now there is not a word of all this in Jeremiah himself. 
And this author adds, that God had promised that he would shew 
them, when he had collected the people. But, after the Babylonian 
captivity, the Jews neither had nor found that ark, that tabernacle, 
nor that altar, nor did God, after that event, shew these things to 
any one. The papists object, that this is not to be understood of 
the return under Cyrus, when that remnant of the Jews was col- 
lected, but of the advent of Christ, when the whole people shall be 
collected, or of the conversion of the Jews a little before the end 
of the world. But this is an utterly vain conjecture. For what 
reason is there why these things should be shewn to the Jews at 
such a period? Or who does not feel the absurdity of so ridiculous 
a figment? However, if we consult the sacred history, we shall 
find that this which is told of Jeremiah is contrary to the truth of 
facts. For Jeremiah was in prison until the destruction of the city. 
Jer. chaps. xxxvii. and xxxvili.: so that he could not take these 
things away and hide them, while the city and temple stood; nor 
would the priests and princes have permitted it. But, after the 
taking of the city, the Chaldeans fire the temple, plunder all its 
valuables, whether gold, or silver, or brass, and carry them off with 
themselves, as we read 2 Kings xxv., and in the last chapter of 
Jeremiah. Jeremiah, therefore, had no opportunity of taking away 
the ark of the Lord, and the altar of incense, which were overlaid - 
and covered entirely within and without with pure gold, Exod. xxv. 
11. Besides, where are those records of Jeremiah to be found, 
which are mentioned in the beginning of this chapter ? 

Seventhly, there are many things in these books irreconcileable 
and contradictory, such as the following examples which I shall 
proceed to specify. In the first place, these books are not agreed 
about the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, who was a most bitter enemy 


xIV. | QUESTION THE FIRST. 99 


of the Jews. For in 1 Mace. vi. 8 and 16, Antiochus is said to 
have died of mental anguish upon the receipt of evil tidings, and to 
have died at Babylon in his bed; at which time also he gave his 
son in charge to Philip, whom he set over the kingdom. But in 
2 Mace. i. 16, he is beheaded and cut in pieces in the temple of 
Nansa. So that we have now been told of two deaths of An- 
tiochus, since the manner of dying on these two occasions is different. 
But this author tells us further of a third death of the same man 
Antiochus, 2 Mace. chap. ix; where he writes that he died far away 
in the mountains of an internal pain in the bowels, out of which 
worms were seen to crawl, and a horrible stench issued through 
almost the whole army. One man could not have died so many 
and such different deaths. The papists however set up some pre- 
tences. Canus says (Lib. rr. cap. 11 ad quartum) that it is not the 
same Antiochus. But the history itself refutes him at once; and 
Bellarmine was compelled to allow that the person meant was one 
and the same. He endeavours to reconcile the accounts thus: 
Antiochus lost his army in the temple of Nansa, on the road he 
fell from his chariot, afterwards he was carried to Babylon and 
breathed his last. They confess therefore that Antiochus died at 
Babylon, as is related in the first book: and, indeed, the first book 
deserves more credit than the second. Now read what is related 
in the second book concerning the death of Antiochus in the places 
already cited. In chap. i. we read, that the leader himself was 
stoned by the priests, and cut in pieces, and his head thrown out 
to those who were outside. Now this leader is called Antiochus. 
Antiochus, therefore, perished in this temple, unless a man who 
hath been stoned, and cut to pieces, and beheaded, can escape alive. 
Let us now go on to chap. ix. There we shall find that this 
murderer and blasphemer, whilst in a transport of fury he was 
marching from Persia towards Jerusalem, in a remote and moun- 
tainous region exchanged a miserable life for a deplorable death. 
If he died at Babylon, he did not die in the country, nor in a 
mountainous region. Nor can both narratives possibly be true. 

In the next place, Judas is said, 1 Macc. ix. 3, to have been 
slam in the year 152 of the reign of the Seleucide. But in 2 
Mace. i. 10 he writes in the year 188! letters to Aristobulus the 
master of Ptolemy,—that is, 36 years after his death. 


[! In the common text indeed the date stands thus: but one of Mr Par- 
son's MSS. reads reccapakooroU for dySonxocrod. The difference is very 
slight between poy and pm: and the latter doubtless is the true reading. 

7—2 


100 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


In the third place, Judas is said, 1 Mace. iv. 36, to have purified 
the temple before the death of Antiochus, after Lysias had been 
routed. But in 2 Macc. at the commencement of chap. x. this 
purification of the temple is said to have been made after the 
death of Antiochus. For it is the same purification, as our adver- 
saries allow. 

In the fourth place, according to 2 Macc. x., Antiochus 
Eupator, the son of Epiphanes, upon his accession to the throne, 
confided the administration of affairs to Lysias. But, according to 
1 Mace. vi., Lysias was long before in charge of that administration, 
and educated king Antiochus, and gave him the name of Eupator. 

Eighthly, the second book shews that it is written by a human 
spirit. For, in the first place, at the end of the book the author 
begs pardon of his readers, which is altogether alien from the Holy 
Ghost; since he always writes the truth, and writes it as it ought 
to be written, erring neither in the matter nor in the manner, and 
standing in no need of our indulgence. 

They object that Paul used a similar excuse, when he con- 
fesses himself to have been * rude in speech," 2 Cor. xi. 6. I 
reply: Paul never excused himself for writing poorly or slen- 
derly, or accomplishing less than he proposed. But this author 
acknowledges the poorness and slenderness of his composition; and 
therefore, impelled by the sense of his own weakness, could not 
help imploring the humane indulgence of his readers. Paul never 
did this, nor any prophet or apostle. For, as to Paul's calling 
himself rude in speech, (iQuemv Xocyw), it is spoken in the sense 
and style of the false apostles, who, puffed up with a certain empty 
shew of eloquence, despised the apostle as rude and unskilful in 
discourse. In those words, therefore, he did not describe himself 
such as he really was, but such as he was represented by certain 
false apostles. For the apostle was lacking in no commendable 
part of true, simple, holy and divine eloquence, fit for so great a 


For had the letter been written after 170, it would have been dated from the 
era of Liberty, 1 Maec. xiii. 14. Still the difficulty remains, how an event 
could be spoken of as passed in 148, which the first book of Maccabees 
(vi. 14) tells us did not occur till 149. But Basnage (Hist. of the Jews, B. 11. 
c. 1. $ 20) long ago observed, that the years are counted differently in the 
two books of Maccabees. The first, following the Jewish mode, begins the 
year in March: the second in September. Thus the first makes Eupator 
declare war in 150, while the second dates the same event in 149. I wonder 
that Valckenaer did not remember this. See his dissertation de Aristobulo 
Judo, pp. 40, 41.] 


XIV. | QUESTION THE FIRST, 101 


teacher and apostle: but, because these pretenders called him 
idwrnv ory, he acknowledges that, in their way of thinking, and 
judged by their model and standard, he was an idus. For this 
is that eloquence which he calls “wisdom of words” (codiav 
Ao-yov), 1 Cor. i. 17, and * words which man’s wisdom teacheth” 
(Óudaucrovs avOpwrivgs codias Noryous), 1 Cor. ii. 18, and “ excel- 
lency of speech" (vepoynv Aocyov), 1 Cor. ii. 1; and which St Peter 
calls ** cunningly-devised fables" (cecodicpevous uvOovs), 2 Pet. 
i 16. So C&cumenius interprets the apostle: Aoyov déyee TO 
eyyeyupvacOa TH EAAnuKH copia. ‘He means by speech the 
being exercised in the wisdom of the Greeks.” To a similar 
purpose Aquinas upon that place: ‘Because the apostle pro- 
posed the faith plainly and openly, therefore they said that he was 
rude in speech!" So Lyra: * He says this to refute the saying 
of the false apostles, who despised his doctrine, because he spoke 
plainly and coarsely. Therefore he tells them that he did this 
not from lack of knowledge, but because, as times then were, it 
was not expedient for the Corinthians to have subtle questions 
preached to them?.” The same is the opinion concerning this 
place expressed by Catharinus archbishop of Campsa: “I do 
not think,” says he, “that Paul confesses himself to have been 
really rude in speech, since he was an excellent preacher. But he 
seemed so to those according to whose opinions he is speaking, 
because his style had a spiritual simplicity, and was not redolent 
of their secular and affected eloquence?." For what Canus says, 
(Lib. i. c. 11, on the fourth head,)—“ There is no reason why 
the Holy Ghost should not assist an author who yet speaks modestly 
in a human manner*,"— is an insult to the Holy Spirit. The Holy 
Spirit ever teaches us modesty; but meanwhile ever speaks and 


[! Apostolus proposuit eis fidem non in subtilitate sermonis, sed...... 
plane et aperte; ideo isti dicebant eum imperitum esse sermone.—In 2 Cor. xi. 
" Lect. 2. Comm. p. 140. Ant. 1569.) 

[? Hoc dicit ad repellendum dictum pseudapostolorum, qui contem- 
nebant ejus doctrinam, eo quod plana et grossa dicebat: ideo dicit, quod hoc 
non ex defectu scientize, sed quod non expediebat Corinthiis pro tunc subtilia 
preedicari.— Biblia cum Gloss. Lyr. P. vi. p. 74. Lugd. 1520.] 

[3 Non puto Paulum se fateri esse imperitum sermone, cum esset prza- 
dicator eximius: sed ita illis videbatur ad quorum opinionem loquitur; quia 
sermo ejus habebat simplicitatem spiritualem, et non secularem illam affec- 
tatam redolebat eloquentiam.— Comm. in Paul. Epp. p. 232. Paris. 1566. ] 

[* Nihil impedit ut Spiritus Sanctus scriptori assistat, qui in quibusdam 
tamen, humano more, ex modestia loquitur.) 


102 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ oH. 


writes in a way that cannot be excelled by any one possessed of a 
mere human spirit. 

In the second place, this author speaks of the labour of making 
this epitome as troublesome, and full of toil and difficulty, 2 Mace. 
i. But nothing is so difficult as to give any trouble to the Holy 
Spirit: for the Holy Spirit is God, and labours under no human 
weakness, and possesses infinite wisdom and power. Bellarmine, 
indeed, objects, that, although God ever assists all the sacred 
writers, yet the mode is different in the case of the historians from 
what it is in the case of the prophets. The prophets had no other 
trouble than that of dictating or writing, since God inspired them 
with a knowledge of all that they were to write or dictate; as we 
read of Baruch writing things down from the lips of Jeremiah. 
But the historians underwent much labour in searching and 
thoroughly examining their subject, as Luke declares of himself, 
chap. 1. 3. I confess, in reply to this, that those who published 
histories used diligence and industry: for the Holy Spirit does 
not make men lazy, or slothful, or negligent. So Luke thoroughly 
investigated, and knew accurately, and wrote most truly, all things 
pertaining to his subject. But I absolutely deny that this writing 
was troublesome or difficult to Luke, because nothing can be 
troublesome to the Holy Spirit; and Luke, when he wrote his 
narrative, had the Holy Spirit as much as John when he wrote the 
Apocalypse. “The Holy Ghost,’ as Ambrose says, “knows 
nothing of slow efforts'.” Besides, how could the task of making 
a short epitome of five books by Jason of Cyrene have been so 
troublesome to the writers of the Maccabeean history ? Certainly 
it is very easy to take out of another work what we choose, and 
to omit what we choose not. The mind, the spirit, the genius, the 
confession, the history are here all human. 





CHAPTER XV. 


OF THE BOOKS ALLOWED BY THE PAPISTS TO BE APOCRYPHAL. 


We have now spoken of those apocryphal books of the old 
Testament, which the papists maintain to be canonical, and have 
shewn them to be truly apocryphal. It remains now that we 


[! Vide supra, p. 38.] 


Xv. | QUESTION THE FIRST. 103 
come to those apocryphal pieces of the old Testament which 
are judged apocryphal by the papists themselves. Concerning 
these there is no dispute between us and them. Nevertheless, I 
will give a brief enumeration of them, so as to let you understand 
what and of what sort they are. They are these: The third 
and fourth books of Esdras: the third and fourth of Macca- 
bees; whereof the third is found in some copies of the Bible, and 
the fourth is mentioned by Athanasius in his Synopsis. To these 
must be added the prayer of Manasseh, which is set after the 
books of Chronicles: the 151st Psalm: the Appendix to the 
book of Job in the Greek copies. There is also a little preface to 
the Lamentations of Jeremiah, which is apocryphal. All these 
are conceded to be apocryphal parts of the old Testament, because 
not found in the Hebrew text, nor reckoned in the canon by any 
council or pope. The third book of Maccabees, however, is 
counted in the canon by Clement?, whom some suppose to have 
collected the canons of the apostles, and who was a sovereign 
pontiff; upon which difficulty they know not what to say. 

The fourth book of Esdras, chap. vi, contains some fables 
about the two fishes, Enoch and Leviathan, which are pretended to 
be of such vast and prodigious magnitude, that no waters can contain 
them. There are many things of the like stamp in these books, 
fit to please and feed human curiosity, but discordant from all 
sound and solid instruction. Such is the fiction in chap. iv., that 
the souls of the righteous are kept in certain subterranean cells 
until the number of the righteous shall be complete, and that then 
they will no longer be able to retain them, even as the womb 
cannot hold the fcetus beyond the ninth month. Such also is the 
story, chap. xiv, that the sacred books were lost in the captivity, 
and restored to their integrity by Ezra, after a retirement of forty 
days. For if these books had been lost, and written anew by 
Ezra, their language would be Chaldee, and not Hebrew; upon 
which point we shall speak hereafter. But these are false and 
incredible figments, rejected even by the papists, who yet generally 
are wont to entertain such fables with wonder and veneration. 
Indeed Genebrard, in his Chronology (anno mundi 3749), calls both 
these books canonical; which may well excite astonishment, as being 
not only repugnant to right reason and the common opinion of the 
doctors, but also made in contradiction to the authority of the 
council of Trent. Genebrard, however, builds his cause upon the 

[2 Vide supra, p. 94.] 


104 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ CH. 


same reasons by which Bellarmine, as noticed above, seeks to prove 
the canonicity of Tobit, Wisdom, and the rest. Genebrard shews 
that these books are cited by ancient fathers, and that the Church 
is wont to read portions of them upon her sacred anniversaries. 
All this is perfectly true, since in the third week of Pentecost, and 
the commemorations of Martyrs, lessons are taken from the fourth 
of Esdras. Therefore either this argument, which Bellarmine hath 
hitherto used so often, does not prove the matter proposed, or these 
books of Esdras must come in as canonical on the same plea: which 
yet the Jesuits would be so far from granting, that they would 
oppose it as grossly erroneous. However Genebrard does not 
stand alone in this mistake. For John Benedictus also, in the be- 
ginning of his bible, places the third and fourth of Esdras in the 
number of those books which, although not contained in the Hebrew 
canon, are yet received by the christian Church. In like manner 
Renatus Benedictus in his Stromata Biblica, Lib. 1. c. 9, counts 
the third and fourth of Esdras among the canonical books. 

The prayer of Manasseh is extant neither in Hebrew, nor in 
Greek; and although it seems pious, yet I cannot understand how 
that passage can be defended where he says, “Thou hast not ap- 
pointed repentance to the just, as to Abraham, and Isaac, and 
Jacob, which have not sinned against thee;" unless we suppose, 
indeed, that this is only said comparatively. For they too had 
sinned, and stood in need of repentance. 

Psalm cli. is found in the Greek, but not in the Hebrew copies. 
It contains thanks to God for the victory over Goliah, and was 
translated by Apollinarius in his Metaphrase!. However it was 
always esteemed apocryphal. The appendix to the Book of Job? 
is condemned by Jerome, as translated only out of the Syriac 
tongue, and not found in the Hebrew, and because Job is there 
said to have been the fourth from Esau, whereas he was of the 
race of Uz, who was the son of Nahor. So Jerome in his Questions 
and traditions upon Genesis?. In his Epistle to Evagrius, however, 
(Quest. 126) he says that Job was more probably descended from 
Esau, yet affirms that the Hebrews think otherwise. 

All these the papists allow to be apocryphal; and they may as 
well add to them what we esteem apocryphal also. For the argu- 
ments, as you have already seen, are no less valid against the latter 
than against the former. Hence too it appears evidently, that it is 


[! Fabricius, Cod. Pseud. V. T. T. 1. p. 907.] 
[? Ibid. p. 793.] [? Hieronym. Opp. T. m1. p. 339.] 


Xv. | QUESTION THE FIRST. 105 


not everything that is read in the Latin bibles that can claim canon- 
ical authority, since many apocryphal pieces are found there. But 
from this it arose that the apocrypha, being bound into one volume 
with the canonical scriptures, obtained by degrees more and more 
credit and authority, and at last were esteemed even canonical 
themselves, 





CHAPTER XVI. 
OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


IT follows that, in the next place, we should speak of the books 
of the new Testament. But I will omit this portion of the subject, 
inasmuch as it involves no controversy between us and the papists. 
For we acknowledge without any exception those same books as 
they judge to be canonical. Those books of the new Testament 
which the council of Trent hath enumerated, those all, and those 
only, our church receives. If Luther, or some of Luther's followers, 
have thought or written otherwise concerning some of them, as the 
Epistle of James or that of Jude, or some other pieces, they must 
answer for themselves: their opinions are no concern of ours, nor 
is it incumbent upon us to defend them, since we are, in this 
respect, no followers of Luther, and submit to the direction of 
better reason. However the persons just mentioned can produce 
in their behalf the judgment and example of the ancient christian 
Church and of certain fathers. For it is sufficiently known, that in 
old times some christian churches and fathers, distinguished for their 
piety and their learning, removed from the canon all those books 
which Luther called in question. There is, therefore, no just cause 
why our adversaries should inveigh so vehemently and with such 
acrimony against Luther on this account, since he hath erred no 
more in this respect than several catholic churches and some holy 
fathers formerly, and even some very distinguished papists at the 
present day. Cajetan openly rejects all the following :—the 
Epistle of James, the second of Peter, the second and third of 
John, the Epistle of Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews (which 
Luther certainly never disputed), the history of the woman taken 
in adultery, John viii, the last chapter of Mark, and throughout 
the gospels and other books several passages about which it never 
entered into the mind of Luther to entertain a doubt. However 


106 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


all who doubted about some canonical book were not, in former 
times, therefore reputed heretics. But I will not pursue this 
subject farther, since it hath no connexion with our cause. Let 
them attack others, but not from henceforth molest us. 

Thus, then, we doubt not of the authority of any book of the 
new Testament, nor indeed of the author of any, save only the 
Epistle to the Hebrews. That this epistle is canonical, we all 
concede in the fullest sense; but it is not equally clear that 
it was written by the apostle Paul. Some judge it to be Paul's, 
others think otherwise. This was a questionable point in the 
earliest period of the Church. Eusebius (Lib. mr c. 3) writes! 
that the church of Rome denied this Epistle to be Paul's; but 
now that church hath changed its opinion, and attributes the 
authorship to Paul. Jerome, in his Catalogue under the Article 
PauL, hath these words: “The Epistle called that to the He- 
brews is not thought to be his, on account of the difference 
of the style and diction?." He writes to the same effect in his 
Epistle to Paulinus, and upon the 13th chapter of Jeremiah. 
Tertullian ascribes it to Barnabas*, Some to Luke the Evangelist, 
as Jerome testifies. So Caius, an ancient and learned writer, 
enumerates no more than thirteen epistles of Paul, as Jerome tells 
us in the Catalogue. “In the same volume,” says he, “ enume- 
rating only thirteen epistles of Paul, he says that the fourteenth, 
which is inscribed to the Hebrews, is not his. Yea, and amongst 
the Romans, even to this day, it is not looked upon as the work 
of the Apostle Paul*.” Eusebius also hath mentioned this Caius, 
Lib. vi. c. 16. Hence it appears clearly, that many in former 
times thought this epistle not to have been written by Paul. 

But now, if I were to seek to mention all who attribute this 
epistle to the apostle Paul, I should never find an end. Jerome, 
in his epistle to Dardanus, says, that almost all the Greek authors 
affirm it to be Paul’s®; and of this mind is Origen (in Eusebius, 
Lib. vr. c. 18), —Clemens Alexandrinus (in Eusebius, Lib. vi. c. 11), 

[! dre ye pay tives nOeTHKace THY mpós ‘EBpaious, mpos Tis '"Popaíev ékkAg- 
cías ws py IlavAov ovcay airiy avridéyerba dxjcavres, ov Oíkatov dyvoeiv.— 
Eccl. Hist. T. 1. pp. 189, 190. ed. Heinrich. ] 

[2 Epistola qu; fertur ad Hebreeos non ejus creditur, propter styli ser- 
monisque dissonantiam.—Opp. T. 11. p. 823.] 

[3 De Pudicitia. c. 20. Extat enim et Barnabe titulus ad Hebreos. ] 

[* Et in eodem volumine epistolas quoque Pauli tredecim tantum enume- 
rans, decimam quartam, que fertur ad Hebreeos, dicit ejus non esse. Sed 


et apud Romanos usque hodie quasi Pauli Apostoli non habetur.—c. 59. 
T. x1. p. 886.] [5 T. rr. p. 608, alias Ep. 129.] 


XVI. ] QUESTION THE FIRST. 107 


—-—Eusebius himself (Lib. 11. c. 3),—the council of Laodicea (c. 59), 
—Athanasius, in the Synopsis and elsewhere, — Irenzus?, Cyril 
(Thesaur. Lib. xu. c. 9),——Chrysostom upon the epistle, and Na- 
zianzen in many places. Theophylact wonders at the impudence 
of those who deny it. Damascene cites a testimony from it as a 
work of Paul'sé. Even the more celebrated of the Latins hold the 
same language. Augustine, de Doctr. Christ. Lib. 1. e. 8, and 
many other places. Ambrose wrote commentaries upon this, as 
one of Paul's epistles, and calls it a work of Paul's, in commenting 
upon Psalm cxix.2 So also Gregory the Great, Moral. Lib. v. 
cap. 3. And the apostle Peter seems to testify that this is an 
epistle of Paul's, in these words, 2 Pet. iii. 15,“ As our brother 
Paul hath written to you.” Now they were Hebrews: for it was 
to Hebrews that Peter wrote, as is plain from the inscription of 
his first epistle; and it was to the same persons that the second 
also was sent, since he says, ‘“‘ This second epistle I now write unto 
wou. eh. WH, ub. 

This, however, I leave to the judgment of the reader, with- 
out determining anything absolutely one way or other. I know 
that some allege reasons to shew that this cannot possibly be an 
epistle of Paul’s. But I perceive that these have been opposed 
and refuted by others, as Illyricus, Hyperius, &c. We need not 
be very earnest in this debate. It is not a matter of necessity, 
and the question may well be left in doubt, provided that, in the 
meanwhile, the authority of the epistle be allowed to remain clear 
and uncontested. Jerome, in his epistle to Dardanus, hath sagely 
reminded us, that it makes no great matter whose it is, “since it 
is certainly the work of an ecclesiastical man, and is continually 
used every day in the reading of the churches.” Gregory, in 
like manner, wrote excellently well of the author of the book of Job, 
when, in the preface to his commentary upon that book, cap. 10, 
he answers the inquiries put to him upon that subject: “ Who 
wrote these things, it is superfluous to ask, if only we believe 
faithfully that the Holy Spirit was the author of the book. He 
himself, therefore, wrote these things, since he dictated them to be 


[6 Mansi, T. rr. p. 574.] 

[7 It seems a mistake to say that Irenseus cites this epistle as Paul's. 
Stephen Gobar (apud Photium cod. coxxr. p. 904) affirms the contrary.) 

[§ De fide Orthodox. Lib. tv. c. 17. T. 1. p. 283.] 

[? See also in Job. Lib. xvi. c. 23, p. 546, x.] 

[1° Et nihil interesse cujus sit, quum ecclesiastici viri sit, et quotidie eccle- 
siarum lectione celebretur. ut supra, p. 106. n. 5.] 


108 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


written. If we read the words in some letter which we had gotten 
from some great man, and raised the question, what pen they were 
written with; it would surely be thought ridiculous that we should 
be curious not to know the author and understand his meaning, but 
discover what sort of pen it was with which their characters were 
traced!.” Since, then, we perceive that the Holy Ghost is the 
author of this epistle, it is superfluous to inquire so anxiously 
and curiously about the pen, and rash to affirm anything without 
certain evidence. 

Apocryphal, by the confession and in the opinion of all, are 
those numerous spurious gospels under the names of Thomas, 
Andrew, Nicodemus, the Nazarenes, &c., whereof we read in Gra- 
tian, Dist. 15. ec. Sancta Romana. These are not now extant, 
although they were formerly read and highly esteemed by many. 
But the Lord provided for his church that, while the true gospels 
were constantly preserved, those fictitious ones should perish utterly. 
Besides, that piece which goes about under the title of the Epistle 
to the Laodiceans, is likewise apocryphal; of which Jerome writes 
in the catalogue under the article Pau: ** Some read the epistle to 
the Laodiceans, but it is universally exploded?" And the fathers of 
the second Nicene council, Act. 6, say: * Amongst the epistles of 
the apostle there is one which goes under the title of that to the 
Laodiceans, which our fathers have rejected as spurious?." I know 
not whence the notion of such an epistle originated, if it were not 
from the error and fault of the Latin version, Coloss. iv. 16. For 
the Vulgate reads there, et illa que est Laodicensium, as if there 
had been some epistle written to the Laodiceans by Paul The 
Latin words are ambiguous, and may be understood in such a sense. 
But the Greek text immediately removes this suspicion, ka: T75jv €« 
Aaodelas. Therefore this epistle which Paul here mentions, 
whatever it was, was not written to the Laodiceans, but from the 
Laodiceans; which all the Greek expositors have observed. 


[| Quis hoe scripserit supervacanee queritur, cum tamen auctor libri 
Spiritus Sanctus fideliter credatur. Ipse igitur hsec scripsit, qui hee scri- - 
benda dictavit. Si magni cujusdam viri susceptis epistolis legeremus verba, 
eaque quo calamo essent scripta queereremus; ridiculum profecto esset, si | 
non epistolarum auctoritatem scire, sensumque cognoscere, sed quali calamo 
earum verba impressa fuerint, indagare studeremus.—Opp. TT. 1. p. 7. Paris. 
1701.] 

[? Legunt quidam ad Laodicenos, sed ab omnibus exploditur. T. rr. p. 823.] 

. [8 Kai yàp rod Oeiov "ArooróNov mpós Aao0weis héperar mÀaoarr) émuaToN) . . . 
ijv oi marépes pay dmeOok(uacav.—Concil Labb. et Cossart. T. vit. p. 475.] 


xvi.] QUESTION THE FIRST, 109 


There is also a book of Hermas, called the Shepherd, which 
Jerome speaks of in the catalogue, under the article Heras. 
The papists concede this also to be apocryphal, yet so as to be 
capable of being made and adjudged to be canonical by the church. 
For so Stapleton writes of this book, Doctrinal. Princip. Lib. rx. cap. 
14, and he says as much of the Clementine Constitutions. Nor 
should this surprise us, since Gratian, upon the foot of a passage 
from Augustine (which, however, he hath most shamefully and 
fouly corrupted), asserts that the decretal epistles are to be 
reckoned a part of the canonical scriptures, Dist. 19*, Which in- 
tolerable falsification of this compiler Alphonsus de Castro (contra 
Her. Lib. r. e. 2), and Andradius (Def. Trident. Lib. 11.) acknow- 
ledge and condemn. Yet there are still some papists who persist 
in the same impudent blasphemy. For one Alphonsus de Guerero 
adduces the evidence of this place to prove that the decretal epistles 
of the Roman pontiffs are equal to the sacred scriptures; whose 
words stand as follows in the Thesaurus Christiane Religionis, cap. 
9. Num. 5: “ Also decretal epistles have the force of authority, 
and decretal epistles are reckoned part of the canonical scriptures®.” 
Also John Turrecremata, (de Ecclesia. Lib. rv. p. 2. c. 9), and Ca- 
jetan, in his book de Primatu Pape, make use of this corrupt place 
in Gratian to prove the authority and primacy of the Roman pon- 
tiffs. Thus the volume of the new Testament will be augmented by 
a glorious accession, if all the decretal letters of the popes are to be 
counted amongst the sacred scriptures. But look yourselves at the 
passage in Augustine, de Doctr. Christ. Lib. rr. c. 8, and see there 
the manifest ignorance or manifest fraud of Gratian. For Augus- 
tine says not a word of decretal epistles, or Roman pontiffs, and the 
scope of the whole place is directed quite another way. 

But we have now finished the first question which we proposed 
concerning the canonical books. 


[* c. vi. Zn Canonicis. Where the Roman editors, having cited the pas- 
sage as it really stands in Augustine, very fairly add: “Que quidem B. 
Augustini sententia non ad decretales Romanorum pontificias, sed ad cano- 
nicas et sacras scripturas referenda est."'] 

[^ Et decretales epistole vim auctoritatis habent, et in canonicis scrip- 
turis decretales epistole connumerantur. Ap. Roccaberti, Bibl. Max. Pontif. 
T. 1t. p. 15. Rome, 1698.] 





THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. 


QUESTION II. 


OF THE AUTHENTIC EDITION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 





CHAPTER I. 


THE STATE OF THE QUESTION. 


Tue first point raised in our inquiry concerning the duty of 
searching the scriptures, as between us and the papists, hath now 
been sufficiently explained. For we have found what are the books 
of holy scripture which we are commanded to search, and have re- 
jected the error of our adversaries, who seek to introduce certain 
apocryphal books into the canon. Wherein, indeed, no one can 
fail to perceive their manifest unreasonableness, and the utter hope- 
lessness of their cause. For, in the first place, not content with 
those books which are truly canonical and inspired, those books 
in which the Lord hath desired us to seek his will, they add to this 
list of sacred pieces many others of a foreign and wholly hetero- 
geneous character.  Farther stil, they cannot think that even 
with all this they have enough, but join to these scriptures even 
unwritten traditions also; that so they may be enabled to prove 
by their spurious scriptures and traditions those dogmas of which 
they can find no vestige in the genuine scriptures. On the other 
hand, we have already shewn these books to be apocryphal, and I 
shall presently speak of their traditions in the proper place. Order 
requires that we should now proceed to the second question of our 
controversy, which contains two divisions. The first is concerning 
the authentic edition of the scriptures: the second, concerning the 
versions of scripture and sacred rites in the vulgar tongue. We 
shall handle each in its proper order. 

Rightly to understand the state of this question, we must re- 
member what the council of Trent hath enjoined upon this subject ; 
which synod we read prescribing in the second decree of its fourth 


QUESTION THE SECOND. 111 


session, that “the old Latin vulgate edition should be held for 
authentic in public lectures, disputations, preachings, and expositions, 
and that no man shall dare or presume to reject it under any pre- 
text whatscever!.” Consequently, the point to be decided in this 
question is, whether this Latin version, commonly styled the vulgate, 
is the authentic edition of scripture, or not rather the Hebrew text 
in the old Testament, and the Greek in the new. Our opponents 
determine the Latin to be authentic, and so the council of Trent 
hath defined it. So Melchior Canus (Lib. m. c. 13) interprets 
this decree, and deduces from it four conclusions. The first is, 
that the old vulgate edition must be retained by the faithful in all 
points which pertain to faith and morals: the second, that all 
questions concerning faith or morals must be determined by this 
Latin edition: the third, that we must not in a disputation ap- 
peal to the Hebrew or Greek copies: the fourth, that, in matters 
of faith or morals, the Latin copies are not to be corrected from the 
Hebrew or Greek. In like manner our countrymen the Rhemists, 
in the preface to their version of the new Testament, run out into a 
long panegyric upon this Latin edition, and contend for its superi- 
ority not only to all other Latin versions, but even to the Greek 
itself which is the original and prototype. Lindanus, in the first 
book of his treatise de optimo genere interpretandi, prefers the 
Latin edition to the Hebrew and Greek; and Andradius (Defens. 
Trident. Lib. 1v.) declares it intolerable that any one should be per- 
mitted to despise the authority of that edition which is used by the 
church, or to appeal freely to the Hebrew and Greek. 

Although, therefore, our adversaries do not condemn the He- 
brew and Greek originals, yet they conclude that not these 
originals, but the vulgate Latin edition is the authentic text of 
scripture. Our churches, on the contrary, determine that this 
Latin edition is very generally and miserably corrupt, is false 
and not authentic; and that the Hebrew of the old Testament, 
and the Greek of the new, is the sincere and authentic scripture 
of God; and that, consequently, all questions are to be deter- 
mined by these originals, and versions only so far approved as 
they agree with these originals. Consequently, we and our ad- 
versaries maintain opinions manifestly contradictory. 


[1 Sanerosancta synodus ..... statuit et declarat, ut heec ipsa vetus Vul- 
gata editio, que longo tot seculorum usu in ipsa ecclesia probata est, in 
publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, preedicationibus, et expositionibus pro 
authentica habeatur, et ut nemo illam rejicere quovis preetextu audeat vel 
praesumat. p. 20. Lips. 1837.] 


112 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


It behoves me to proceed in this question in such*a course 
as to say something,—first, of the Hebrew edition of the old 
Testament; secondly, of the Greek of the new; thirdly, of this 
Latin vulgate itself. Upon this last point I shall shew that it 
is corrupt, and therefore to be corrected and judged of by the 
standard of the original text, which is, indeed, the grand hinge 
upon which this whole controversy turns. The former matters 
therefore I shall dispateh briefly, so as to come without delay 
to the main subject. 





CHAPTER II. 
OF THE HEBREW EDITION. 


Tue Hebrew is the most ancient of all languages, and was that 
which alone prevailed in the world before the deluge and the erec- 
tion of the Tower of Babel. For it was this that Adam used, and 
all men before the flood, as is manifest from the scriptures, and as 
the Fathers testify. So Augustine in his book de Mirabilibus 
Scripture (cap. 9): * Whereas, up to that time, the whole race of 
all men were of one language, he divided their tongues into different 
terms! And, in his City of God (Lib. xvi. e. 4): “Time was 
when all had one and the same language?" This is likewise con- 
firmed by that testimony of the Sybil, which Josephus hath set 
down, Antiquit. Lib. i. c. 6: * When all men were of one lan- 
guage, some of them built a high tower, as if they would thereby 
ascend to heaven; but the gods sent. storms of wind, and overthrew 
the tower, and gave every one his peculiar language? Which 


[1 Cum ad illud tempus esset unius linguee cunctus populus, universorum 
lingulas in diversa verba divisit. ] 

(2 Cum ergo in suis linguis istee gentes fuisse referantur, redit tamen ad 
illud tempus narrator, quando una lingua omnium fuit.] 

[? Ilávrov opopdvev Ovreov dvÜpeomev, müpyov cko0óugcáv Twes Wq/gAó- 
TatTov, ws emt Tov o)pavóv avaBnodpevor Ov abro): oi dé Oeoit dvéuovs émumréu- 
Wavres ávérpeyrav tov müpyov, kal idiay ékáor9 dovyv eSaxay. Lib. 1. c. 4. 
§. 3. ed. Richter. Lips. 1826. The lines, as given by Opsopzeus, are these: 

opopwvo Ó' cav &mavres, 
Kai fBoóXovr' dva(jMjv' ele obpavóv aàcepoévra, 
Aitixa d0avato..... e 


IIvetpacw. 


Sibyll. Orac. Lib. ur. p. 223. edit. Opsop. Paris. 1599.] 


1. ] | "QUESTION THE SECOND. 113 


testimony of that aged prophetess is not to be rejected, since it 
agrees with the scriptures. It was, therefore, no slight error of 
Philastrius (Heeret. c. 106) to contend that there were many lan- 
guages from the beginning, and to stigmatize as heretical the opi- 
nion that there was but one language before the building of Babel. 
For so the scripture tells us plainly, Gen. xi. 1: ** The whole earth 
was of one language and one speech." Now Augustine, in his City 
of God (Lib. xvi. c. 11) tells us, that this common language re- 
mained in the family of Heber, and was thence called Hebrew; 
which is also expressly affirmed by Eucherius upon Genesis (Lib. rr. 
c. 2): * At that time, wherein a diversity of languages was pro- 
duced, the former tongue retained its place in the family of Heber 
alone5." Thus, whilst all other races were punished with a sudden 
change of dialect, Heber preserved his ancient language, and trans- 
mitted it to his posterity, not all of them indeed, but that line from 
which Abraham descended. And, along with the language, the 
pure religion also was propagated in the family of Abraham. Fur- 
thermore, in that perturbation and confusion of tongues which took 
place at Babel, the Hebrew was the mother of the rest. For the 
others are generally but dialects and varieties of this, some more 
closely allied and bearing a greater resemblance to their parent, 
while others have deflected farther from the primitive stock: but 
all the rest are derived from it. ** We may perceive," says 
Jerome, on Zephaniah, chap. ii. “that the Hebrew language is the 
mother of all languages®.” He gives there one example in proof, 
the identity of the Hebrew ZVugei with the Latin Nuge. 

In this language, which the faithful after that time preserved 
incorrupt in one family, the old Testament was published, as all 
unanimously agree. Upon this subject Jerome thus writes in his 


[4 Non defuit domus Heber, ubi ea que antea fuit omnium lingua re- 
maneret. ] 

(5 Eo tempore quando linguarum facta est varietas, in sola domo Heber 
quze antea fuit lingua commansit.—c. 7. p. 61. These commentaries are falsely 
attributed to Eucherius of Lyons, who flourished A.D. 434, as they make 
citations from Gregory I. and Cassiodorus. They were published among 
his works, Basil. 1531.] 

[6 Ut nosse possimus, esse Hebraicam linguam omnium matricem. T. vr. 
p.730. The verse referred to is 18. But in °233, which Jerome translates 
^ugas in its obsolete sense of mourners, the 3 is not radical but servile,— 
the mark of the Niphal participle from i12* corresponding to the Sanscrit 
wig.] E 


[ WHITAKER. | ‘ 


114 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


142nd Epistle: *Allantiquity agrees to witness that the beginning 
of speech and common discourse, and the whole substance of human 
language, is the Hebrew tongue, in which the old Testament is 
written!" It is also certain that Moses is the earliest writer, 
although some persons think otherwise, and allege certain names of 
books which are found in the scriptures. These objections may be 
easily answered ; but I shall not enter upon that subject as not per- 
taining to the matter in hand. God himself shewed the model and 
method of writing, when he delivered the law, inscribed by his own 
finger, to Moses. This is the opinion of Chrysostom (Opp. T. rr. p. 1. 
Eton. 1612), and Theophylact (upon Matth. 1); and it is also em- 
braced by the Papists, as Hosius, in his Confessio Petrocoviensis, 
cap. 15, and the Jesuit Schrock, in his 13 Thesis de Verbo Dei. 
Augustine, indeed, (Civit. Dei. Lib. xv. c. 23,)? affirms it to be cer- 
tain that Enoch committed some things to writing, since Jude asserts 
as much in his Epistle. But it does not appear that this is a fair 
inference from Jude’s expression: for Jude does not say, “ Well 
wrote Enoch;” but, “well prophesied,” apoepytevce. The 
passage cited, therefore, is either some oral speech of Enoch’s, or 
else written by some other person. But we must not say that any 
book written by Enoch was extant at the time when this epistle 
was written: for if so, it would have been canonical. But the 
Jews had no such book in their canon. It was Moses, therefore, 
the greatest of the prophets, who wrote the first canonical book of 
scripture; after whom other prophets published several volumes. 
Some wrote before the captivity, as Samuel, Nathan, Isaiah, Hosea, 
and many more: some in the captivity, as Ezekiel and Daniel: 
some for a space after the captivity, as Ezra, Haggai, Zechariah, 
Malachi. These all wrote in Hebrew, except a few pieces which 
we find composed by Daniel and Ezra in Chaldee. But the Chal- 
dee tongue is near akin to the Hebrew, and was then a language 
known to the church. Nor is this exception a matter of sufficient 
moment to prevent Jerome from saying that the old Testament is 
entirely written in Hebrew. 

There are some, however, who imagine that the whole old 
Testament perished in the captivity. This suspicion, perhaps, arose 


[! Initium oris et communis eloquii, et hoc omne quod loquimur, He- 
bream linguam, qua vetus Testamentum scriptum est, universa antiquitas 
tradidit.—Ep. 18. T. 1. p. 49.] 

[? Seripsisse quidem nonnulla divina Enoch, illum septimum ab Adam, 
negare non possumus, cum hoc in epistola canonica Judas Apostolus dicat.] . 


11. | QUESTION THE SECOND. 115 


from considering that, when the temple was burnt, all that was in’ 
it must have been consumed in the same conflagration. Hence 
they believe that the sacred volumes of scripture must have been 
destroyed in the flames; but that, after the captivity, Ezra, in- 
structed by the Holy Spirit, published these afresh, as it were 
again recovered. In this opinion was Clemens Alexandrinus (Strom. 
Lib. r)? and Irenzus (Lib. nr. e. 25), who writes thus: “In that 
captivity of the people which took place under Nebuchadnezzar, the 
scriptures being impaired, when, after the expiration of seventy 
years, the Jews returned to their own land, and after that again in 
the times of Artaxerxes, king of the Persians, God inspired Ezra, 
who was of the tribe of Levi, to renew all the discourses of the 
prophets, and restore to the people the law which had been given 
them by Moses*.” Similar are the words of Leontius (de Sectis. 
Act. 2): “Ezra, coming to Jerusalem, and finding that all the 
books had been burnt when the people were taken captive, is said 
to have written down from memory those two and twenty books of 
which we have given a list in the foregoing place®.” Isidorus (de 
officiis), and Rabanus Maurus (de Inst. Cleric. c. 54) write to the 
same effect. They affirm, therefore, two things: one, that the 
whole sacred and canonical scripture perished in the Babylonian 
captivity: the other, that it was restored to its integrity by Ezra, 
instructed and inspired in a wonderful manner by the direct agency 
of God. 

But the falsehood of this opinion is manifest. For the pious 
Jews had, no doubt, many copies of the scripture in their possession, 
and could easily save them from that calamity. What man in his 
senses will say that there was no copy of the scriptures beside that 
in the temple? Besides, if these books had been deposited in the 
temple, would not either the priests or somebody else have been 


[3 80 dy wíivera..... 6 TÀv ÉÜeomvevaTov avayvepicpos kal dvaxawiopos 
Aoyíev. P. 329, n. Morell. Paris. 1629. Compare also 342, 5.]. 

[4 v v5 emi Nafovxo8ovócop aixuaXecía ToU aod OuajÓapew dv Trav 
ypaQóv, kai pera éBOougkovra ern Tv 'lovOaiev àveAÜóvrov eis THY xopav 
abrÓv, €mevra ev vois xpdvois "Apra£épfov ToU Ilepcóv Baowéws évémvevoev 
"Eodpa rà íepei ex tis dvAfs Aevi, trols TÓvw mpoyeyovórev mpopyntay mávras 
avaragacOar Aóyovs, kal dmokaraoTíjcat. TH Aad Tv Sid Mocéos vopobeciar. 
P. 293. ed. Fevard. Par. 1675. The Greek is given by Eusebius, H. E. v. 8.] 

[5 *O 8e "Eodpas éehOav eis Ta lenog hua kal etpov dru mávra Eia 
7cav FOU d. svika Hxpükeria aam, dmó pynpns Xéyerat ovyypayacOa Ta 
KB’ BiBXia, dep év rois ávo amnpiOunodueOa. $. 8. p. 632. ap. enano Bibl. 
V. P. T. xu. Venet. 1788.] 

8—2 


116 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. (cH. 


able to rescue them from the flames? It is incredible that the 
religious Jews should have been so unmindful of piety and religion 
as to keep no copies whatever of the scriptures, whilst they lived 
in Babylon, especially while they had such men among them as 
Ezekiel and Daniel. But it is certain that they had many copies. 
For even Antiochus himself could not utterly destroy them all, 
though he set himself to do so with the utmost zeal and sedulity. 
Hence it appears that there were everywhere a very great number 
of copies; and now the Babylonians made no such fierce assault upon 
the sacred books. In accordance with what we might expect from 
such premises, Ezra is simply said, Nehem. viii, to have brought 
the book of Moses and read it. The books of Moses therefore, 
and, in like manner, the other books of scripture, were preserved 
safe in the captivity; and we have now no other, but the very 
same books of scripture of the old Testament as those which were 
written by Moses and the rest of the prophets. 

However, it is very possible that the books, which may have 
been previously in some disorder, were corrected by Ezra, restored 
to their proper places, and disposed according to some fixed plan, 
as Hilary in his prologue affirms particularly of the Psalms.  Per- 
haps, too, Ezra either changed or reformed the shapes and 
figures of the letters. Jerome indeed, in his epistle to Paulinus, 
maintains that ** Ezra invented new forms for the letters after the 
return from the captivity; for that previously the Jews had used 
the same characters as the Samaritans!." Hence, if we credit Jerome, 
Ezra introduced new forms of the letters, more elegant and easy 
than those which were before in use, copied out the law in these 
new characters, and left the old ones to the Samaritans. In con- 
formity with this statement, Jerome further tells us, upon Ezekiel 
ix.?, that the last letter of the alphabet was formerly similar to the 
Greek Tav, and that it still, in his time, retained that figure in the 
Samaritan character; while the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet 
has now quite another and different shape. 


[! Certum est, Esdram scribam Legisque doctorem, post captam Hiero- 
solymam ....alias literas repperisse, quibus nunc utimur: cum ad illud 
usque tempus iidem Samaritanorum et Hebrzorum characteres fuerint. ] 

[? Antiquis Hebreeorum literis, quibus usque hodie utuntur Samaritani, 
extrema Thau litera, crucis habet similitudinem.—T. v. p. 96. The remark 
was made by Origen before him: rà dpxaia orotxeia ép epés &xew 1d Tad Ta 
Tov oTavpov xapaxkrnpt. Coins are still found which preserve the old cruciform 
Pheenician Tau, though the Samaritan has ceased to bear that shape. ] 


11. ] | QUESTION THE SECOND. 117 


But, though Jerome affirms that Ezra invented new characters, 
he never says that he made everything new. He might very easily 
copy and set forth the same ancient text in the new letters. We 
must hold, therefore, that we have now those very ancient scrip- 
tures which Moses and the other prophets published, although we 
have not, perhaps, precisely the same forms and shapes of the 
letters. 





CHAPTER III. 


OF THE GREEK VERSION BY THE SEVENTY TRANSLATORS OF 
THE HEBREW BOOKS. 


TnursE Hebrew books of sacred scripture were, of old, trans- 
lated into various languages, particularly into Chaldee and Greek. 
The Chaldee paraphrase is generally allowed great eredit and 
authority, especially that of the Pentateuch which was made by 
Onkelos?. The rest were turned into Chaldee by Jonathan and 
Joseph, who lived a little before, or about the time of Christ‘. 
There were many Greek translations of scripture published by 
various authors. But, without question, the noblest and most 
famous of them all was that which was composed by the seventy- 
two interpreters in Egypt, in complianee with the pious wishes of 
Ptolemy Philadelphus. We may read large accounts of this Greek 
version in Epiphanius (de Mensur. et Ponder.9), Eusebius (Preeparat. 
Evangel. Lib. vir.?), Justin Martyr (Dial. c. Tryph.?), besides many 
others. Nay, there is still extant a book of Aristzeus, who pretends 
to have been one of Ptolemy’s body-guards, and gives a narrative 
of the whole transaction. But Ludovieus Vives? (in Lib. xvrrr. 


[3 It is printed in Buxtorf’s Rabbinical Bible, Basil, 1719, and in the 
Paris and London Polyglotts. Onkelos's history is involved in great obscu- 
rity. The best book on the subject is perhaps Luzzato’s Philoxenus, Vienna, 
1830.] 

[* Jonathan Ben Uzziel lived probably a little before the time of Christ; 
but Joseph the Blind presided over the school at Sora about a.p. 322. A 
great part of the Targum, which goes under his name, was probably written 
much later. ] 

[5 ©. 3, 6, 9—11.] 

[$ pp. 206—209. ed. Steph. Par. 1544.] 

[ p. 294. Opp. Just. Mart. Par. 1636.] 

[$ Cireumfertur libellus ejus nomine de LXX. interpretibus, confictus ut 


118 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. Lox. 


c. 43. August. de Civit. Dei,) supposes this book to be the fiction 
of a more modern writer. That the scriptures were translated into 
Greek, there can be no doubt, since all antiquity attests the fact. 
But the other parts of the story are not equally certain. 

This version I suppose to have been the first and earliest of 
all the Greek versions; although Clemens Alexandrinus (Stromat. 
Lib. 1.1) seems to say that the scripture was translated into Greek 
long before this period, and read by Plato; and the question of 
Numenius, a Pythagorean philosopher, is alleged by him, 74 yap 
eor: IIAavov 7 Moons arvrwi(Qov; What else is Plato but an 
Attic Moses? But if the sacred books of scripture had been 
translated into the Greek tongue previously, then Demetrius, who 
collected the library for king Ptolemy, would not have been igno- 
rant of that version or desired a new one. Plato, indeed, and the 
Pythagoreans might have known something of these books from 
the common discourse of men and intimacy with those who were 
acquainted with them; but I hardly think that they ever read the 
books in Greek. For this was the first Greek translation, published 
about three hundred years before Christ, as Theodoret writes in 
these words: “ This first edition was published three hundred 
and one years before God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, came 
to sojourn with us in the flesh®.” 

Some there are who think that the seventy interpreters did 
not translate the whole scripture of the old Testament, but only the 
law into the Greek language, understanding under the name of the 
law not the entire ancient scripture, but merely the Pentateuch. 
Such was the opinion of Josephus, as we find in the Proem to his 
antiquities, where he hath these words: * For Ptolemy did not 


puto ab aliquo recentiore.—P, 620. ed. Froben. Basil. 1512. The spurious- 
ness of this piece was finally demonstrated by Hody, in a treatise which forms 
the first part of his great, work, De Bibliorum Textibus, &c. Oxon. 1705.] 

[! Senppyvevrar dé kai mpd Anyntpiov...... Ta re Kata THY ef AlyómTov 
éfayoyüv tav 'EBpaíev r&v nyetépov moMwrüv, kai 7 TOY yeyovdtay ámávrov 
avTois émupáveiua, kal ETE Ths x@pas, kai tis 6Ans vopoOeaías emebryyots: 
dore eVdnArov elvat Tov mpoeipnuevoy Pirdcopoy eiAnpévar moXXd. — yéyove yàp 
zoXvpaOrs.—P.342. B.c. The passage is quoted from Aristobulus, upon whom 
see Valckenaer, de Aristobulo Judo Diatribe. It appears to me, however, 
that Aristobulus is there not speaking of any regular translation, but of such 
pieces as those of Ezekiel Tragcedus, in which the greater part of the Mosaic 
history was paraphrased i in Greek verse or prose. ] 

[2 mpórg O6 avrn rj &kOocis eyévero mpd TpiakooToU mpoTov éroÜs Tis pera 
trapkós mpos Has emdnuias Tod OcoÜ Aóyov kai Kupiov r)u&v 'IncoU Xpi'ov.) 


ri. ] ‘QUESTION THE SECOND. ° 119 


obtain the whole scripture; but the interpreters only delivered to 
him the law?." Which, he says, was the circumstance that led him 
to introduce the whole scripture to Grecian readers. That this 
was Josephus’ opinion is confirmed also by the testimony of Jerome. 
But others hold that all the books were translated; and theirs 
seems the more probable view. For the reason which led them 
to make any version at all is sufficient to persuade one that they 
made a complete one; nor would the king have been satisfied with 
only a part. The wonder, too, which some relate of the incredible 
celerity with which the task was performed would have no place, if 
they translated so small a piece only. Chrysostom, in his discourse 
against the Jews, affirms that the scriptures translated by them 
were reposited in the temple of Serapis, and the version of the 
prophetic books might be found there even still: wéype vov exer 
TOv llooQszrev at epunvevOeroa Bifsro. évovow*. And Theo- 
doret says that the Jews sent to king Ptolemy not a part only of 
the scripture, but the whole written in golden characters, xovoois 
ypaupact THY Tacav yypadyy evonugvauevo. Now, if the books 
of the prophets translated into Greek by them remained in the 
royal library to the time of Chrysostom, and if the Jews sent the 
whole scripture along with the interpreters to the king, there is no 
room left to doubt that the whole scripture was translated by them 
into the Grecian language. 

What authority, however, this version should command is un- 
certain. The ancients used to hold it in the highest estimation, and 
looked upon it as unique and divine. Epiphanius, in his book of 
Weights and Measures, says that the translators were not mere 
interpreters, but, in some sort, prophets also*. And Augustine (de 
Doct. Christ. Lib. rr. c. 15) says, that this version was made by a 
divine dispensation, and was held in greatest repute among the 
best learned churches, since the translators were said to have been 
“aided by such a presence of the Holy Spirit in their interpreta- 
tion as that they all had but one mouth®.” Upon this subject he 


[3 ovS€ yàp mücav ékeivos éÓg XaBeiv rjv avaypadny, GAN abra póva và . 
ToU vópov mapéSocay oi meupbévres ent Tijv e&jynow eis thy ‘Ade~avdpeiar. 
Procm. $3. p. 6.] 

[* Tom. vr. p. 37. ed. Savil.] 

[5 od uóvov épumvevrai ékeivot yeydvacw, adda kai awd pépovs mpojfjra. De 
Pond. et Mens. $ 17. Opp. T. 1r. p. 173. c. ed. Petav. Colonize. 1682. ] 

[$ Septuaginta interpretum, quod ad vetus Testamentum attinet, excellit 


120 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ou. 


hath also written largely in his City of God, Lib. xvi. e. 42 and 
43. In like manner, Irenzus (Lib. ut. c. 25) writes that, though 
each made his translation apart, yet in the end, when they all 
met together and compared their several versions, “‘ they all recited 
the same thing and in the very same words and terms from 
beginning to the end; so as that the gentiles who stood by might 
easily perceive, that it was by the inspiration of God that the 
scriptures were translated!" So Augustine, in the City of God, 
Lib. xvi. e. 42: “ The tradition is that there was so wonderful, 
stupendous, and absolutely divine agreement in their expressions, 
that although each sat down separately to this task (for so Ptolemy 
chose to try their fidelity), yet none differed from another even in 
a single word, though it were synonymous and equivalent, or in 
the order and placing of the words. But, as if there had been 
but one translator, so the translation was one; as, indeed, it was 
one and the same Holy Spirit which was in them all" Now, 
while I doubt not that this version was held in high authority, 
and that deservedly too, I cannot think that the miracles which 
are told to magnify its authority deserve credit; and, indeed, we 
find that they are treated as fables by Jerome in the Preface to 
the Pentateuch?. However great may have been the authority 
of this version, it could not have been greater than that of our 
version. They, therefore, attribute too much to it, who make it 
inspired, and equal to the authentic scriptures themselves. For 
the authority of those interpreters was not so illustrious and cer- 
tain as that of the prophets: nor is it the same thing to be an 


auctoritas: qui jam per omnes peritiores ecclesias tanta preesentia Sancti 
Spiritus interpretati esse dicuntur, ut os unum tot hominum fuerit. ] 

(! ràv mávrov rà avrà rais avtais Aé£egt kal roig abrois óvópacuw avayopev- 
cávrov dm dpxijs péxpt réXovs, Bate kai rà rrapóvra €Ovyn yvàvat OTe kar. émimrvouav 
TOU Oeo0 eigiv npunvevpevat ai ypapai.—P. 293. ut supra.] 

[? Traditur sane tam mirabilem ac stupendum planeque divinum in eorum 
verbis fuisse consensum, ut cum ad hoc opus separatim singuli sederint, (ita 
enim eorum fidem Ptolem:eo regi placuit explorasse,) in nullo verbo, quod 
idem significaret et tantundem valeret, vel in verborum ordine, alter ab altero 
discreparet, sed tanquam si unus esset interpres, ita quod omnes interpretati 
sunt, unum erat, quoniam revera Spiritus erat unus in omnibus. ] 

[? Nescio quis primus auctor septuaginta cellulas Alexandrie mendacio 
suo extruxerit, quibus divisi eadem scriptitarint, cum  Aristeeus ejusdem 
Ptolemsi vmepaomioT)s, et multo post tempore Josephus nihil tale retu- 
lerint, sed in una basilica congregatos contulisse scribant, non prophetasse. 
A Dp 5l 


11. ] QUESTION THE SECOND. 121 


interpreter and to be a prophet. Rightly, therefore, does Jerome?, 
in the Preface to the Pentateuch, call the seventy interpreters, not 
prophets. In his Commentaries also he frequently blames the 
Greek version of the seventy translators, not only as depraved by 
the scribes, but even as faulty in itself; which he surely would 
not have done, if he had deemed that translation to be possessed of 
such divine and supereminent authority. 

Learned men question, whether the Greek version of the scrip- 
tures now extant be or be not the version of the seventy elders. 
The sounder opinion seems to be that of those who determine that 
the true Septuagint is wholly lost®, and that the Greek text, as 
we have it, is a mixed and miserably corrupted document. —Aris- 
t»us says that the Septuagint version was exactly conformable to 
the Hebrew originals, so that, when read and diligently examined 
by skilful judges, it was highly approved by the general suffrage 
of them all. But this of ours differs amazingly from the Hebrew 
copies, as well in other places and books, as specially in the Psalms 
of David. Nor is there room for any one to reply that the He- 
brew is corrupt. For even the papists will not venture to maintain 
that the Greek is purer than the Hebrew. If they did, they 
would be obliged to condemn their own Latin version, which agrees 
much more closely with the Hebrew than with the Greek. Nay, 
the faults of the Greek translation are so manifest, that it is im- 
possible to find any way of excusing them. There is the greatest 
difference between the Hebrew and Greek books in the account of 
times and years. The Greek books reckon 2242 years from Adam 
and the beginning of the world to the flood, as we read in Augus- 
tine, Eusebius, and Nicephorus’ Chronology. But in the Hebrew 
books we see that there were no more than 1656. Thus the 
Greek calculation exceeds the Hebrew by 586 years. Again, from 
the deluge to Abraham there is, according to the LXX., an 
interval of 1082 years. But if you consult the Hebrew verity, 
you will not find more than 2929, Thus the Greek books exhibit 


[* Aliud est enim esse vatem, aliud esse interpretem. Ibi Spiritus ventura 
predicit: hie eruditio et verborum copia ea que intelligit profert. Ibid.] 

[5 This opinion is most learnedly, but in my opinion most hopelessly 
maintained by Ussher, in his Syntagma De LXX. Interprett. See Walton 
Proleg. 1x. pp. 125—159. (Vol. rr. ed. Wrangham.)] 

[$ See some admirable remarks upon the comparative merits of the He- 
brew, Samaritan, and Greek chronologies in Gesenius, De Pentateuchi Samar. 
Orig. &c. Hale. 1815.] 


122 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


190 years more than the Hebrew: and all concede the Hebrew 
numbers to be much truer than the Greek. Gen. v., in the Greek 
books, Adam is said to have lived 230 years, or, according to 
some copies, 330, when he begat Seth. But the Hebrew text 
shews that Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old. In 
the rest there is a similar discordance of reckoning times, so as to 
prove that it was not without reason that Jerome wrote that the 
LXX. sometimes erred in their numbers. It is even a laughable 
mistake in the Greek by which Methusalem is made to survive the 
flood fourteen years!. Where did he remain during the deluge ? 
or how was he preserved? Certainly he was not in the ark; in 
which the scripture testifies that there were no more than eight per- 
sons. This, therefore, is a manifest falsity in the Greek edition. 
But the Hebrew text speaks much more truly of the years and age 
of Methusalem; and we collect from it that he died in that same 
year in which the world was overwhelmed by the deluge. Augus- 
tine treats of this matter in his City of God, Lib. xv. c. 11. So 
Jonah ii., according to the Hebrew reading, destruction is de- 
nounced against the Ninevites after 40 days. But in the Greek 
we read otherwise, “ Yet three days, and Nineve shall be de- 
stroyed:" which is manifestly a false reading; for he could 
scarcely have traversed the whole city in three days. Augustine 
(Civit. Dei. Lib. xvi. c. 44) invents I know not what mystery in 
this change of numbers to preserve the authority of the Septuagint, 
which, nevertheless, in the former place about Methusalem he is 
unable to defend. | 

From these and innumerable examples of the like sort we may 
conclude, either that this Greek version which hath come down to 
our times is not the same as that published by the seventy Jewish | 
elders, or that it hath suffered such infinite and shameful cor- 
ruptions as to be now of very slight authority. Even Jerome had 
not the Greek translation of the seventy interpreters in its purity ; 
since he often complains in his commentaries that what he had 
was faulty and corrupt. 


[1 Whitaker might have remembered, that Augustine (Civit. Dei, xv. 13), 
and the author under his name of the Questions on Genesis, Q. rr. appeal to 
ancient MSS. of the LXX. which are free from this fault. Walton (Proleg. 
IX. T. rr. p. 168. edit. Wrangham) observes, that Methusalem's age at the 
birth of Lamech is made 187 instead of 167 in the Cotton MS., the octateuch 
of J. Clemens, and the Aldine edition. ] 


1v.] QUESTION THE SECOND. ^ 123 


CHAPTER IV. 
OF OTHER GREEK TRANSLATIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, 


BesipEs this first and most famous translation, which was made 
by the seventy interpreters, there were formerly other Greek ver- 
sions also of the old Testament, composed by various authors after 
the gospel of Christ had been spread far and wide over the world. 
The first of these was Aquila of Sinope, whom the emperor Hadrian 
employed as preefect and curator of the works when he repaired 
Jerusalem. Epiphanius, in his book of Weights and Measures, 
relates that this Aquila, having originally been a Greek, received 
baptism and was admitted into the christian society; but, on account 
of his assiduous devotion to astrology, was first censured by the 
Christians, and finally, when he disregarded their censures and 
admonitions, ejected from the Church; that, stung by such a dis- 
grace, this impious man revolted from the Christians to the Jews, 
had himself circumcised, learned the Hebrew language and literature, 
and translated the scriptures of the old Testament into Greek, but 
not with faithfulness or sincerity, but with a depraved and perverse 
intention (kauavAw Kal Óeo Tpaumeveo Aoyiouw, as Theodoret 
says,) of obscuring the testimonies which confirm the doctrine of 
Christ, and giving a plausible colour to his apostasy. 

He was followed by Symmachus, whom Epiphanius testifies to 
have lived in the time of Aurelius Verus?, and who was a Samaritan 
according to Theodoret. Being ambitious of power and dignity, 
and unable to obtain from his countrymen that authority and 
honour which he desired, he betook himself to the Jews, and trans- 
lated the scriptures from Hebrew into Greek (pos duastpopny) 
for the confutation of the Samaritans. Epiphanius relates that this 
Symmachus was twice circumcised; xai wepitéuvera, says he, 
Qevrépav Tijv Tepttounv’ which he shews to be possible by adducing 
those words of the apostle, wepitetunudvos Tis exAyOn 3 un em 
oTdácÜw, and ascribes the device there meant to Esau as the 
inventor. 

Next came? one Theodotion of Pontus, of the party and sect of 
Marcion. He, having not only rejected the Marcionite opinions, 


[2 Ut supra, c. 16.] 


[3 Whitaker has fallen into a mistake in placing Theodotion after Sym- 
machus. See Hody, p. 179.] 


124 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


but also utterly abjured Christianity, went over to the Jews; and, 
having learned their language, translated the scriptures into the 
Greek tongue, “for the confutation,” as Theodoret says, “of his 
own sect" (mpos ótacTpodjv Tis avTod aipecews). These three 
interpreters were enemies of the christian faith, and did not trans- 
late the scriptures honestly. Yet Jerome and other ancient writers 
often cite their translations in commenting upon the bible. Those 
versions have now perished, save that the papists retain some 
parts of Theodotion’s version, and obtrude them on the world as 
canonical. For they have the apocryphal 13th and 14th of Daniel 
not from the pure Hebrew originals, but from the Greek translation 
of Theodotion, an impious heretic or apostate. 

There was also another Greek translation by Lucian!, a pres- 
byter of the church of Antioch, and a martyr about the time of 
Diocletian, which is mentioned by Theodoret, in the Synopsis of 
Athanasius, and elsewhere?. They say that this was found written 
by the martyr's own hand, at Nicomedia, in a marble tower. And 
Jerome, in the catalogue, says that in his time some copies were 
called Lucianea. There were also two other editions by unknown 
authors. The first was found at Jericho in a pitcher?, in the reign 
of Caracalla; the other in a similar vessel, at the northern 
Nicopolis, in the reign of Alexander the son of Mammea, as Epi- 
phanius and Theodoret testify. 

I come now to Origen, who, according to the narrative of Epi- 
phanius and others, being assisted by the resources of Ambrosius, 
a rich and pious person, bestowed incredible pains upon collecting 
and comparing the various editions of the scriptures*. He brought 
together the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, the seventy-two, 
and Theodotion, into one volume, arranged in four distinct columns. 
This formed what is called Origen's Tetrapla (rerpamAa [918Aia). 
Afterwards he added the Hebrew text in two columns, expressing in 
one in Hebrew, in the other in Greek characters. This was the 
Hexapla. Lastly, he appended the two anonymous versions found 
in jars, and so constructed the Octapla, a laborious and super-human 


[! Lucian made no new translation, but only revised the text of the LXX. 
See Hody, p. 627.] 

[2 Synopsis Script. inter Opp. Athanasii. T. 1. pp. 203, 204. cf. Suidas, 
voc. Aouktavós.] 

(3 Epiphan. de Mens. et Pond. c. 17.] 

[4 See what is still the fullest and best account of Origen's labours in 
Hody, Lib. 1v... e. AL]. 


Iv. | | QUESTION THE SECOND. 125 


work, which is now lost, to the irreparable injury of the 
Church. Origen marked these texts with various asterisks and 
obeli, Jemnisci and hypolemnisci, according as the various and 
manifold characters of those editions required. This was a work the 
loss of which we may deplore, but cannot compensate. 





CHAPTER V. 


OF THE GREEK EDITION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


We have next, in the second place, to speak of the Greek 
edition of the new Testament. It is certain that the whole new 
Testament was written in Greek, unless, perhaps, we are to except 
the Gospel of Matthew and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Hosius 
of Esmeland (in his book de Sacro Vernac.) says, that it was only 
the Gospel of Matthew which was written in Hebrew. Jerome 
affirms the same thing in these words of his Preface to the four 
evangelists addressed to Damasus: * The new Testament is un- 
doubtedly Greek, with the exception of the Apostle Matthew, who 
first published the gospel in Judza in Hebrew letters®.” Neverthe- 
less in the catalogue, under the article Paul, he says that the Epistle 
to the Hebrews was written in Hebrew. Thus he writes: ** He wrote 
most eloquently as a Hebrew to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew, that 
is, in his own language9." The translation of this epistle into Greek 
some ascribe to Barnabas, as Theodorus Lector? in his second book 
of Collectanea, some to Luke’, and some to Clemens’. But, how- 
ever that may be, the Greek edition both of the Gospel according 
to Matthew and of the Epistle to the Hebrews is authentic. For 
the Hebrew originals (if any such there were) are now nowhere 
extant, and the Greek was published in the life-time of the apostles, 


[^ De novo nunc loquor Testamento, quod Greecum esse non dubium est, 
excepto apostolo Matthzeo, qui primus in Judza evangelium Christi Hebraicis 
literis edidit. —Opp. T. 1. p. 1426.] 

[6 Scripserat, ut Hebreus Hebreeis, Hebraice, id est suo eloquio, disertis- 
sime. ] 

[7 I think this is a mistake. At least I can find no such statements in 
Theodorus.] 

[8 So Clemens Alex. ap. Euseb. H. Eccl. L. vi. c. 14.] 

[9 Euseb. H. E. Lib. im. c. 38. oí uév róv evayyeduoriy Aovkay, of 0€ róv 
KAjpevra ro)rov abróv épunvedoa éyovor thy ypapyy.] 


126 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


received in the church, and approved by the apostles themselves. 
Jerome in the Catalogue (Article Marruaus), tells us: ** He first 
composed a gospel in the Hebrew character and language, in Judea, 
for the sake of those of the circumcision who had believed ; but it is 
not certainly known who translated it into Greek.” He adds, that 
“the Hebrew text itself was preserved in his time in the library of 
Czsarza which was built by the martyr Pamphilus!" So Nazian- 
zene in his version upon the genuine books?: 
MarOaios uév éypawyev “EBpaios Oavpara Xpwrrov 

where, when he says that Matthew wrote the miracles of Christ for 
the Hebrew, it is implied that he wrote his gospel in Hebrew. So 
Trenzeus, Lib. rr. c. 1, relates, that * Matthew published the scripture 
of the gospel amongst the Hebrews in their own language?." These 
fathers then suppose that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, and 
that it was translated by an unknown hand. Athanasius, however, 
in his Synopsis‘, writes that the Hebrew gospel of Matthew was 
translated into Greek by the apostle James, but brings no argument 
to command our credence. 

Nor is the opinion of a Hebrew original of the gospel of 
Matthew supported by any proofs of sufficient strength. For 
at the time when Christ was upon earth the Jews did not speak 
Hebrew, but Syriac. Matthew, therefore, would rather have 
written in Syriac than in Hebrew; as indeed it is the opinion 
of Widmanstadt and Guido Fabricius, to which our jesuit also 
subscribes, that Matthew wrote his gospel not in the Hebrew, but 
in the Syriae language. And they allege that, when the fathers 
say that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, we must understand them to 
mean that Hebrew dialect which the Jews then used, and which was 


[! Primus in Judea, propter eos qui ex circumcisione crediderant, evange- 
lium Christi Hebraicis literis verbisque composuit: quod quis postea in Grz- 
cum transtulerit non satis certum est. Porro ipsum Hebraicum habetur 
usque hodie in Ceesariensi Bibliotheca, quam Pamphilus Martyr studiosissime 
confecit. c. 3. It seems to be certain, nevertheless, that Jerome believed 
this Gospel to have been written in Syriac. Compare Adv. Pelag. Lib. m1. 
c.l. In evangelio juxta Hebreos, quod Chaldaico quidem Syroque sermone, 
sed Hebraicis literis scriptum est, quo utuntur usque hodie Nazareni, secun- 
dum apostolos, sive (ut plerique autumant) juxta Mattheum, quod et in Cesa- 
viensi habetur Bibliotheca, &c.] 

[2 Poem. xxxmr. 31. Opp. T. n. p. 99. Lips. 1690.] 

[3 6 uév Maratos év rois ‘EBpaios 77) idia OaXékro abràv kal ypapny é£jvey- 
Kev evayyediov. P. 220. et ap. Euseb. H. E. Lib. v. c. 8.] 

- [4 Inter Opp. Athan, T. m. p. 177.] 


v.] | QUESTION THE SECOND. 127 


not pure Hebrew, but Syriae, or a mixture of Hebrew and Chaldee. 
Yet Jerome thought that the gospel of Matthew was written in pure 
Hebrew: for, in the catalogue under the article Marr us, he writes 
that there was a MS. remaining of this Hebrew gospel in the 
library of Nicomedia?, and that he was permitted to make a copy 
of it. On the whole, therefore, it seems uncertain that Matthew 
wrote his gospel either in Hebrew or in Syriae; and it is rather to 
be thought that both Matthew and the author of the epistle to the 
Hebrews wrote in Greek, since the Greek language was then not 
unknown to the Jews themselves, and the other apostles used the 
Greek language not only in those pieces which they wrote for all 
promiseuously, but also in those which were inscribed peculiarly to 
the Jews, as we see in the case of James and Peter. However, 
the learned are agreed that those Hebrew copies of this gospel and 
epistle which are now extant are not genuine. 

The Lord willed the new Testament to be written in Greek, 
because he had determined to bring forth the gospel from the 
narrow bounds of Judea into a broader field, and publish it to 
all people and nations. On this account the Lord selected the 
Greek language, than which no other was more commonly known 
by all men, wherein to communicate his gospel to as many coun- 
iries and persons as possible. He willed also that the heavenly 
truth of the gospel should be written in Greek in order to pro- 
vide a confutation of the Gentiles' idolatry and of the philosophy 
and wisdom of the Grecians. And, although at that time the 
Romans had the widest empire, yet Cicero himself, in his ora- 
tion for the poet Archias, bears witness that the language of the 
Greeks was more widely extended than that of the Romans®, As, 
therefore, before Christ the holy doctrine was written in that lan- 
guage which was the peculiar and native tongue of the Church; so 
after Christ all was written in Greek, that they might more easily 
reach and be propagated to the Church now about to be gathered 
out of all nations. 


[5 Mihi quoque a Nazarseis, qui in Berzea urbe Syrie hoc volumine utun- 
tur, describendi facultas fuit. Vide supra.] 

[$ Greeca leguntur in omnibus fere gentibus: Latina suis finibus, exiguis 
sane, continentur. Cic. Opp. T. v. p. 445, ed. Lallemand. Paris. 1768.] 





128 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


CHAPTER VI. 


OF THE LATIN VULGATE EDITION. 


I coME now, as was proposed in the third place, to the Latin 
edition, which is commonly called the Vulgate. That there were 
formerly in the church very many Latin versions of the scriptures, 
we have the testimony of Augustine (de Doctr. Christ. Lib. rr. c. 11) 
to assure us. His words are: * Those who have translated the 
scriptures into Greek out of the Hebrew language may be counted, 
but the Latin translators cannot!" Augustine expresses an opinion, 
that a theologian may derive some assistance from this multitude 
of versions; but shews plainly that he did not consider any one in 
particular authentic, but thought that whatever in each was most 
useful for the reader's purpose, should be employed as a means for 
the right understanding of scripture. But Jerome, in the preface to 
Joshua, complains of this so great variety of the Latin texts: for 
he says that *there were as many texts as copies, since every one, 
at his own caprice, added or subtracted what he pleased?" But 
among the rest there was one more famous, which was called Zta/a?; 
and which Augustine (Doctr. Christ. Lib. 1% c. 15) prefers to the 
others, for keeping closer to the words and expressing the sense 
more clearly and intelligibly. This was not, however, that version 
which Jerome published. Who the author of this version was is 
not known, but it was certainly more ancient than the Hieronymian: 
for Gregory, in his epistle to Leander‘, says that the Roman 


[! Qui ex Hebrea lingua scripturas in Greecam verterunt numerari pos- 
sunt, Latini autem nullo modo. ] | 

(? Maxime cum apud Latinos tot sint exemplaria, quot codices, et unus- 
quisque pro arbitrio suo vel addiderit vel subtraxerit quod ei visum est.] 

[3 As this is the only passage in which any ancient Latin father speaks of 
a versio Itala, various critical efforts have been made to alter the text; the 
most ingenious being that of Archbp. Potter: *In ipsis autem interpretatio- 
nibus UsrrATA ceteris preferatur; nam est verborum tenacior cum perspi- 
cuitate sententice." He supposes the present reading to have originated by 
the absorption of the Us in the last syllable of the preceding word, after 
which Jtata was easily changed into Jtala. But see, in defence of the old 
reading, Hug. Einl. 115.] 

[4 Novam vero translationem dissero; sed ut comprobationis causa exigit, 
nune novam, nune veterem, per testimonia assumo: ut quia sedes apostolica 
(cui auctore Deo przesideo) utraque utitur, mei quoque labor studii ex utraque 
fulciatur. T. 1. p. 6. Opp. Paris. 1705.] 


vi.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 129 


church made use of two versions, one of which he calls the old, and 
the other the new. The old was most probably that same Ztalic; 
the new the Hieronymian, which presently after its publication 
began to be read in some churches, as we may collect from Augus- 
tine's 10th epistle to Jerome, where he writes that some Christians 
were offended by a new word occurring in it: for in the fourth 
chapter of Jonah the old Latin edition had cucurbita (a gourd); 
but Jerome in his version made it hedera (ivy)*. Perhaps the 
Hebrew term does not really denote either, but a quite different 
plant called Ricinus (or Palma Christi). Now, although there were 
formerly many and almost infinite Latin versions in the Latin Church, 
yet these two were undoubtedly the most celebrated and used in the 
greatest number of churches, since we find Gregory attesting the 
use of them both in the Church of Rome. 

At length, however, not only.the rest, which were more ob- 
secure, but even the Italic too fell altogether out of use, and the 
Hieronymian alone prevailed everywhere throughout the Latin 
churches, —if indeed it hath any just claims to be called the Hie- 
ronymian. For I am well aware that there are learned men who 
entertain great doubts upon that subject: and, although most of 
the Papists, and the Jesuits especially, maintain the present Latin 
edition to be the pure Hieronymian, there are, nevertheless, amongst 
them theologians of great erudition and judgment, who determine 
quite the other way, and that upon very weighty grounds. Xantes 
Pagninus, in the Preface to his Translation, which he inscribed to 
Clement VIT., declares himself of opinion that it is not Jerome's, and 
wishes earnestly that Jerome’s own version were remaining. In 
like manner Paul of Forossombrone, De Die Passion. Domin. Lib. 
I. €. 1; not to mention Erasmus, Munster, and the rest of that sort. 
Others, though they allow it to be partly the Hieronymian, yet 
think it not throughout that same version which Jerome composed 
with so much care and fidelity, but a mixture of the Hieronymian 
and some other ancient version. So John Driedo, de Catalog. Script. 
Lib. 1. e. 1: “There are some who say that this Latin translation, 
which the whole church of the Latins commonly makes use of, is 
neither the work of St Jerome, nor in all points perfectly consonant 


[5 In hoc loco quidam Cantherius..... dudum Romee dieitur me accu- 
sasse sacrilegii, quod pro cucurbita hederam transtulerim: timens videlicet, 
ne si pro cucurbitis hederx nascerentur, unde occulte et tenebrose biberet 
non haberet.— Hieron. Comment. in Jon. 1v. Opp. vr. 425. Compare also 
his Epistle to Augustine. Ep. 112.] 

9 


[ WHITAKER. | 


130 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


to the sacred original of scripture!:” and he adds that it is blamed 
and corrected, not only by Armachanus and Lyra, but also by other 
persons of the present time well skilled in both languages.  After- 
wards, in his first proposition, he determinesthat this Latin translation, 
as well of the old as of the new Testament, is neither an altogether 
different translation from Jerome's, nor yet altogether the same with 
it. Sixtus Senensis (Bibliotheca, Lib. vit) is of the same opinion, 
and confesses that he has been brought to that opinion by demon- 
strative arguments. Bellarmine (Lib. rr. c. 9) lays down the three 
following propositions. rst, that the Books of Wisdom, Eccle- 
siasticus, Maccabees, and the Psalms, as they have them, are not 
part of Jerome’s version. The former three he did not translate, 
because he judged them apocryphal. The Psalms he translated with 
the utmost care and religious scrupulousness from the Hebrew: but 
this Vulgate version (as they call it) of the Psalms was made from 
the Greek, as appears on the face of it, and as our adversaries them- 
selves allow. It is even good sport to see how Genebrard, in his 
Scholia, tries to reconcile the Latin version with the Hebrew. Se- 
condly, that the Latin edition of the new Testament was not made, 
but only amended, by Jerome: for Jerome, at the request of Damasus, 
corrected the old version, but did not make a new one; as he him- 
self testifies in several places, and specially in the catalogue towards 
the end. “The new Testament,” says he, “I restored to the Greek 
fidelity; the old I translated according to the Hebrew.” Thirdly, 
that all the other parts of the old Testament are exhibited in the 
Vulgate according to Jerome’s version. 

The reasons which he alleges shew, that this is not the sincere 
Hieronymian edition of either the old or the new Testament, 
but that it may perhaps be not altogether a different version 
from the Hieronymian, as Driedo and Sixtus Senensis suppose. 
Much might be said upon this subject, but we must not spend too 
much time upon such matters. I shall, therefore, in a few words 
make it as plain as the light, that this is not the version which 
Jerome either made himself or published in an amended form. 
For, first of all, Jerome translated the old Testament accurately 
from the Hebrew, as he hath himself frequently professed and 


[! Sunt qui dicunt translationem hane Latinam, qua communiter utitur 
tota Latinorum ecclesia, neque esse divi Hieronymi, neque in omnibus con- 
sonam scripture sacree originali.—Opp. Lovan. 1550. T. 1. p. 24.] 

[? Novum Testamentum Greece fidei reddidi. Vetus juxta Hebraicam trans- 
tuli. c. 135. Opp. 11. 941. The latter clause, Vetus, &c. is wanting in one MS.] 


VI. | | QUESTION THE SECOND. 131 


testified. In the Preface of the Psalter to Sophronius (which is 
the Epistle 133) he writes thus of his translation: * Certainly I 
will say it boldly, and can cite many witnesses of my work, that I 
have changed nothing of the sense, at least from the Hebrew verity. 
Wherever, therefore, my edition clashes with the old ones, ask any 
Hebrew, and you will see clearly that I am unreasonably attacked by 
my rivals, who choose rather to seem despisers of what is excellent 
than to become learners?" Again, in the Preface to the five books of 
Moses: * Wherever you think I go wrong in my translation, ask 
the Jews, consult the masters in various cities, &c.*" And in the 
preface to Kings he declares that he hath nowhere departed from 
the Hebrew verity*. So that Jerome everywhere most carefully 
compared and adjusted his version by the standard of the Hebrew 
books. This Augustine also (Civit. Dei, Lib. xvi. c. 43) testifies 
concerning him: ** We have had in our own time the presbyter 
Jerome, a very learned man and one exquisitely skilled in the 
three languages, who hath translated the divine scriptures not 
from the Greek, but from the Hebrew, into Latin; whose stupen- 
dous literary work the Hebrews acknowledge to be faithful to the 
original&," So Isidorus of Seville, in his Etymologicon, Lib. vi. c. 5, 
prefers the version of Jerome to all others, as adhering more 
closely to the words and expressing the sense with greater per- 
spicuity. That such was the character of the Hieronymian version 
no man can reasonably doubt, since Jerome himself affirms it so often, 
and others agree in the same testimony. 

But now this Vulgate, which we now have, exhibits in the 
several books considerable variations from the Hebrew text, as 
Jerome himself, if he returned to life, would not be able to deny. 
Nor can they answer that the Hebrew is corrupt. For, although 


[3 Certe confidenter dicam, et multos hujus operis testes citabo, me nihil 
duntaxat scientem de Hebraica veritate mutasse.  Sicubi ergo editio mea a 
veteribus discreparit, interroga quemlibet Hebrzeorum, et liquido pervidebis, 
me ab semulis frustra lacerari, qui malunt contemnere videri preeclara, quam 
discere. Opp. T. 1x. 1156.] 

[4 Sicubi in translatione tibi videor errare, interroga Hebreos, diversarum 
urbium magistros consule. Ibid. 6.] 

[ Quanquam mihi omnino conscius non sim, mutasse me quidpiam de 
Hebraica veritate. Ibid. 459.] 

[° Non defuit temporibus nostris presbyter Hieronymus, homo doctissi- 
mus et trium linguarum peritissimus, qui non ex Greco, sed ex Hebreo in 
Latinum divinas scripturas converteret: cujus tantum literarum laborem 
Hebreei fatentur esse veracem.] 


9—2 


32 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cn. 


some papists do indeed say this, yet they are refuted by plain 
reason and by the authority of their own party. Bellarmine, Lib. 
i. c, 2, defends, against Jacobus Christopolitanus and Melchior 
Canus, the integrity of the Hebrew copies, and proves by some 
arguments that they could not have been corrupted by the Jews, 
as those writers supposed. How were they corrupted? By the 
copyists? This cannot be said, since all the MSS. agree; and, 
besides, might just as well be said of the Latin as of the Hebrew 
books. Since, then, the Vulgate edition differs so greatly from the 
Hebrew, they must either pronounce the Hebrew grievously cor- 
rupt (which their more prudent champions will not venture to say), 
or concede that the present Latin text is not the Hieronymian. 
Besides, Jerome in his Questions upon Genesis, his Commentaries 
on the Prophets, and his book De Optimo Genere Interpretandi, 
hath judged that many passages ought to be translated otherwise 
than we find them translated in this version. How then can that 
be called Jerome's version, which Jerome himself condemns? Now 
we could shew by many examples that many things in this version 
are censured by Jerome.  Dut it will suffice to give a specimen in 
a few, which will be enough to establish our desired conclusion. 

Whereas we read, Gen. i, in the Vulgate edition, Spiritus Dei 
ferebatur super aquas, there 1s, says Jerome, in the Hebrew a term 
which means **brooded, or cherished, as a bird warms its eggs with 
animal heat!" In Gen. iv. the Vulgate has, Et respexit Dominus 
ad Abel et ad munera ejus; ad Cain autem et ad munera ejus non 
respexit. Jerome thinks that the place should rather be translated, 
as Theodotion hath translated it, * And the Lord sent fire upon 
Abel and his sacrifice: but upon Cain and his sacrifice he did not 
send fire;" which translation he pronounceth to be most exact?. 

In the same chapter he pronounces that clause, “ Let us pass 
into the field," to be superfluous?, though it appears both in the 
Greek and Samaritan editions. Yet this is the same thing as the 
Vulgate exhibits in the words, Egrediamur foras. 


[1 In Hebreo habet MEREFETH, quod nos appellare possumus incubabat, 
sive confovebat, in similitudinem volucris ova calore animantis. Quest. Hebr. 
in Genes. Opp. T. m1. 306.] 

[2 Unde scire poterat Cain, quod fratris munera suscepisset Deus, et sua 
repudiasset; nisi illa interpretatio vera est, quam Theodotion posuit, Et 
inflammavit Dominus super Abel, &c. ib. 310.] 

[3 Superfluüm ergo est, quod in Samaritanorum et nostro volumine repo- 
ritur, T'ranseaimus in campum. ib. 312.] 


v1. ] . QUESTION THE SECOND. 153 


In Gen. xxx. 32, where we read cunctum gregem unicolorem, 
Jerome observes that we ought to read non unicolorem*; and so 
reason and the context require. Likewise in the first chapter of 
Isaiah, where-the Vulgate hath, ut ambularetis in atriis meis, Je- 
rome translates, ** No longer tread my court? ;” and so the version, 
which we find in his works along with his Commentaries, still reads 
it. So where the Vulgate hath, facti estis miht molesti, Jerome 
reads, facti estis mihi in satietatem. And, in the end of the chapter, 
that passage, which the Vulgate represents by cwm fueritis velut 
quercus, Jerome translates, ‘‘ They shall be like a terebinth$." 
Examples of this kind are almost innumerable. 

Nor does this occur only in the old Testament, but in the new 
also. In the first chapter of the Galatians, the passage, Non ac- 
quievi carni et sanguini, Jerome in his Commentary says should 
be translated, * I conferred not with flesh and blood’.” In the 
same Epistle, chap. iii. 1, Jerome omits in his version these words, 
non credere veritati?, which appear in the Vulgate; whence Eras- 
mus in his Annotations writes, that this is one place out of many, 
which prove that the present edition is not altogether the same as 
Jerome's?, And in Eph. chap. i, Jerome blames the interpreter for 
putting pignus for arrhabo, and proves, by excellent reasons, that 
this is a false translation? : yet in all the books of the Vulgate 
edition we have still not arrhabo but pignus, contrary to Jerome's 
determination. Upon Eph. iv. where the vulgar copies have, qué 


[4 Ibid. 352.] 

[5 Caleare atrium meum non apponetis. Opp. T. rv. 2, 1.] 

[6 Jerome gives both translations: Usque hodie Judzi legentes scripturas 
sanctus terebinthus sunt, sive quercus, ut interpretatus est Symmachus. T. 1v. 
39.] 

[7 Sive, ut in Greco melius habet: Non contuli cwm. carne et sanguine. 
T. vit. 891.] 

[5 Legitur in quibusdam codicibus: Quis vos fascinavit non credere veri- 
tati? Sed hoc, quia in exemplaribus Adamantii non habetur, omisimus. 
Ibid. 418.] 

[? Hic est unus locus e multis, quo coarguitur hzc editio non esse tota 
Hieronymi. Etenim quum ille testetur se hane particulam omisisse, quod in 
Adamantii codicibus non inveniretur, in nostris codicibus constanter habetur. 
—Erasmi Annot. in N. T. p. 576. Basil. 1535.] 

[19 Pignus Latinus interpres pro arrhabone posuit. Non idipsum autem 
arrhabo quod pignus sonat. Arrhabo enim future emtioni quasi quoddam 
testimonium et obligamentum datur. Pignus vero, hoc est, évéxyvpov, pro 
mutua pecunia opponitur; ut quum illa reddita fuerit, reddenti debitum pig- 
nus a creditore reddatur.—Hieron. Opp. T. vir. 560, 561.] 


134 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


desperantes semetipsos tradiderunt impudicitie, “it is otherwise," 
says Jerome, “in the Greek. For the Gentiles do not despair, 
since they have no sense of their ruin, but live like brute beasts ac- 
cording to the flesh.” And he subjoins that instead of “being in 
despair,” we may read, * being without feeling!" Why should I 
endeavour to go through all the rest? It will be easier to find a 
beginning than an end. 

What Bellarmine adduces to obscure this light of truth, may be 
dispelled without difficulty. For, first, in these and innumerable other 
passages there is no error of the copyists; for all the books, whether 
ancient or modern, agree in the reading. Next, as to the various 
signification of words, it is the duty of a good interpreter to con- 
sider well what signification is most suitable, and to choose it. But 
when Jerome says plainly, that he thinks a certain place or word 
should be translated otherwise than it is translated in the Vulgate, 
it is manifest that that version cannot be Jerome's. For, as to his 
third pretence—that Jerome changed his opinion, ——although it 
might be allowed in the case of a few passages, yet in the case of 
so many it is incredible. If he had made so many changes, he 
would have impaired, in no slight degre, the authority of his judg- 
ment. Besides, in most of the instances he had no reason for 
changing. For in Gal. i. zpocaveOépsv is more correctly rendered 
“conferred,” than “acquiesced.” ^ Eph. i, appaBwy is not the 
same as pignus, as Jerome himself hath taught us in his Commen- 
taries. “A pledge," says he, “is given for money borrowed ; 
but an earnest is given as a sort of evidence and security of a 
future purchase? And Eph. iv. amnAynkores does not mean 
“despairing,” but “beimg past or without feeling,’ as Jerome 
says. Who that reads Jerome, disputing and proving by argu- 
ments, that these places should have been thus translated, can 
doubt that he translated them thus himself? Nay, it is not 
only clear that this is not Jerome's version, but manifest also 
that it is a version condemned by Jerome. 

As to Dellarmine's last exeuse,—that the church hath inter- 
posed its authority, and judged the first version to be the truer—I 
ask, when, or how the church declared that judgment? or what 
church it is that he means? or what right any church had to 


[! Multo aliud in Greeco significat quam in Latino ....... exprimamus 
si possimus verbum de verbo, et dicamus, amnAynkdres indolentes, sive indolo- 
vios. Ibid. 621.] 

[2 See preceding page, note 10.] 


vi.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 135 


determine a false or improper version to be truer than a true? and 
proper one? 

_ These, to omit the rest, are sufficiently plain reasons to prove, 
that the Latin Vulgate is not that pure version which Jerome so 
diligently composed and published. Since, however, so many things 
are found in it which were in the Hieronymian, the opinion of those 
who think it made up of Jerome's and some other ancient version 
appears to commend itself to our approval. 





CHAPTER VII. 


WHEREIN AN ANSWER IS GIVEN TO THE ARGUMENTS OF OUR 
OPPONENTS, WHEREBY THEY ENDEAVOUR TO PROVE THAT 
THE LATIN VULGATE EDITION IS AUTHENTIC. 


Wz have next to discourse of the authority of this Vulgate 
edition, which point is the hinge whereupon this controversy par- 
ticularly turns. Our adversaries determine that the authentic 
scripture consists not in the Hebrew and Greek originals, but in 
the Vulgate Latin version. We, on the contrary side, say that 
the authentic and divinely-inspired scripture is not this Latin, but 
the Hebrew edition of the old Testament, and the Greek of the 
new. We shall first obviate the arguments of the adversaries, and 
then produce our own. Upon this question many papists have 
written, and published works, both great and numerous; whose 
diligence Bellarmine has sought to imitate, and endeavours to prove 
this same conclusion by the following arguments. 

He proposes his rirst argument in this form: For nearly a 
thousand years, that is, from the time of Gregory the Great, the 
whole Latin church hath made use of this Latin edition alone. Now 
it is absurd to say, that for eight or nine hundred years together 
the church was without the true interpretation of scripture, or 
respected as the word of God, in matters pertaining to faith and 
religion, the errors of an uncertain translator, since the apostle, 
1 Tim. iii, declares the church to be the pillar and ground of truth. 


[3 In the original, “aut quo jure potuit ulla ecclesia judicare versionem 
aut falsam aut impropriam esse /fa/sa propriaque veriorem ?" Where /a/sa is 
plainly a mistake, though not marked in the errata.] 


- 


136 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


Bellarmine says that this is the argument of the council of Trent, 
and it is the same which Canus uses, Lib. ir. c. 13. 

I answer, in the first place, that the Latin was not at that time 
the whole church; for there were many and very populous 
churches of the Greeks and others. Although, therefore, the Latin 
church had erred, yet it would not follow that the whole church of 
Christ had remained for such a length of time subject to that error. 

Secondly, that the church may be deceived in the translation 
of some passages without, in the meanwhile, ceasing to be the 
church. For the church is not subverted by the circumstance, 
that some place of scripture happens to be improperly rendered ; 
and the Roman church, if it had no other errors except this 
faulty version, and if it put a sound and pious meaning upon 
this Latin scripture which it receives, might still be the church 
of Christ. The fundamental points of the faith are preserved 
intact in this Latin edition, if not everywhere, yet in very 
many places. But that church not only receives and defends 
this faulty version as the authentic scripture, but also pollutes 
by its expositions those places in it, which are well or tolerably 
rendered. 

Thirdly, if it were so necessary that the Latin church should 
have an authentic Latin version, which might claim equal credence 
with the originals, it would have prevailed always in the Latin 
church, not only after Gregory, but also before Gregory’s time. 
But we have shewn that there were many Latin versions in the 
Latin church before Gregory, and no one in particular authentic : 
and after Gregory there was no provision made by any decree of 
the church that this Latin version should be authentic, until the 
publication of this very decree of the council of Trent. 

Fourthly, Bellarmine does not prove that the Latin church 
from the time of Gregory used this edition only. For Isidore, 
who lived after Gregory, says, Etymol. Lib. vr c. 4, “that 
Jerome's version is deservedly preferred to all the rest!" There 
were, therefore, other versions besides this of Jerome, though he 
confesses it to be the purest and best. Besides, interpreters and 
expositors, even after Gregory, do not always use to recite the 


[! Presbyter quoque Hieronymus, trium linguarum peritus, ex Hebreeo in 
Latinum eloquium easdem scripturas convertit... cujus interpretatio merito 
ceteris antefertur. Nam est et verborum tenacior et perspicuitate senten- 
ii clarior. Madrit. 1599. p. 103. Which last are almost the very words in 
which Augustine commends the old Italie, De Doctr Christ. 1r. 15.] 


é 


vir.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 187 


words of seripture as they are now read in this edition, as is plain 
from Bede and Gildas, and other writers, who flourished in the 
church after Gregory. 

Fifthly, as-to the passage of St Paul, we shall explain it here- 
after in the proper place. 

Bellarmine draws his seconp argument from the testimonies of 
the ancients. This version is either the Italie, which Augustine 
praises, or that of Jerome, which Damasus, and Augustine, and 
Isidore, and Rabanus, and Bernard, and others, commend and 
follow. Nor is it the Latins only who give this approbation, but 
the Greeks also, who turned out of Latin into Greek some books 
which had been translated by Jerome out of Hebrew into Latin, 
as Jerome himself testifies in his second book against Ruffinus, and 
in his Catalogue under the article SopHronius?. 

I answer, first, that this argument is wholly inconclusive. For 
what if those authors praise and commend this version? — Will it 
therefore follow that this alone is authentic, or preferable to the 
originals themselves? Nothing less. They praise it, and deserv- 
edly: but yet they always prefer the originals to it. Jerome 
himself adjusted his version by the standard of the originals, and 
wished it to be judged of by that same standard. Augustine, as 
we have previously shewn, passes a long encomium upon that 
translation which the Seventy published. Will our adversaries 
thence conclude that that translation is authentic? On the con- 
trary, they now esteem it very slightly. With what pertinency 
then do they allege that Jerome’s version is approved by Au- 
gustine and other Fathers? Which yet was certainly never praised 
in such a manner as not to imply, that not only the originals were 
considered preferable, but even that higher praise might be deserv- 
edly challenged by the translation of the Seventy elders. In a 
word, it is praised as a carefully executed translation, and is pre- 
ferred to other Latin versions, but not required to be received 
as authentic scripture. Isidore, Etymol, Lib. vr. cap. 5, has these 
words: ‘His [Jerome’s] version is deservedly preferred to the 
others? ;” that is, to the other versions, not to the originals them- 
selves. 

Secondly, his assumption that this is either the Italic or the 


[2 Sophronius.... opuscula mea in Greecum eleganti sermone transtulit, 
Psalterium quoque et Prophetas, quos nos de Hebreeo in Latinum transtuli- 
mus. Catalog. Scriptt. c. 134.] 

(3 Vide supra, pp. 131, 136.] 


138 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


Hieronymian, rests upon no certain basis. Some think it a Latin 
version of Aquila’s, or Symmachus's, or Theodotion's, Greek. That 
it is not the pure text of Jerome’s translation, the reasons which 
we have previously adduced establish. The argument is, therefore, 
faulty every way. 

The rurgD argument is this: The Hebrews had the authentic 
scripture in their own language, and the Greeks in theirs; that is, 
the old Testament in the Septuagint version, and the new Tes- 
tament in the original. Therefore it is fit that the Latin church 
also should have the authentic scripture in its own language. 

I answer, first, by requiring to know in what sense it is that 
he makes the Septuagint version authentic. Is it in the same 
sense in which they make their Latin text authentic? If so, I 
deny its authenticity. For Augustine, who allowed most to the 
authority of the Septuagint version, yet thought that it should be 
corrected by the originals. But the papists contend that their 
Latin text is authentic of itself, and ought not to be tried by the 
text of the originals. Now in this sense no translation ever was, 
or could be, authentic. For translations of scripture are always 
to be brought back to the originals of scripture, received if they 
agree with those originals, and corrected if they do not. That 
scripture only, which the prophets, apostles, and evangelists wrote 
by inspiration of God, is in every way credible on its own account 
and authentic. Besides, if the Septuagint was formerly authentic, 
how did it become not authentic? At least in the Psalms it must 
continue authentic still since they derive their Latin version of 
that book from no other source than the Greek of the Septuagint. 
Even in the other books too it must still be authentic, since it is 
plain from the commentaries of the Greek writers that it is the 
same now as it was formerly. 

Secondly, I would fain know how this argument is conse- 
quential, —God willed his word and authentic scripture to be written 
in Hebrew and Greek; therefore also in Latin. The authentic 
originals of the scripture of the old Testament are extant in 
Hebrew, of the new in Greek. It no more follows from this that 
the Latin church ought to esteem its Latin version authentie, than 
that the French, or Italian, or Armenian churches should esteem 
their vernacular versions authentic. If he grant that each church 
should necessarily have authentic versions of its own, what are we 
to do if these versions should (as they easily may) disagree? Can 
they be all authentic, and yet disagree amongst themselves? But 


vir. | QUESTION THE SECOND. 139 


if he will not assign authentic versions to all churches, upon what 
grounds will he determine that a necessity, which he grants to 
exist in the Latin church, hath no place in others? Cannot the 
churches of the Greeks at the present day claim their version 
likewise as authentic ? 

Thirdly, I know not with what truth they call theirs the 
Latin church. For it does not now speak Latin, nor does any 
one among them understand Latin without learning that language 
from a master. Formerly it was, and was called, the Latin church. 
Now it is not Latin, and therefore cannot truly be so called, except 
upon the plea that, though not Latin, it absurdly uses a Latin 
religious service. 

The rourTH argument is: It may happen that in general coun- 
cils either very few persons, or none at all, may understand He- 
brew or Greek. So Ruffinus, in his Ecclesiastical History, (Lib. x. 
c. 21), writes that no bishop was found in the council of Rimini 
who knew the meaning of the term opoovctos. Now in such cases 
the Church's interest would be badly provided for, if it did not 
understand the authentic scripture. 

I answer, in the first place, That it is absurd to draw an 
argument against the authority or necessity of the originals from 
the ignorance of prelates and bishops. 

Secondly, There never was any general council in which some 
persons could not be found who understood the scriptures in the 
original. But it is not necessary that all who understand the 
scriptures should be masters of those languages in which they 
were first written. The true Church, indeed, hath always had, 
and still possesses, many persons well skilled in those languages. 
What sort of persons come to their councils, is no concern of 
ours. But we grant that many come who know nothing of the 
Hebrew, or Greek, or perhaps even the Latin, tongue. 

Thirdly, It is false, that no one was found in the council of 
Rimini capable of understanding the term ouoovcros. For there 
were present many bishops from Greece, who were well acquainted 
with the Greek language: but perhaps there were not many 
among them who exactly perceived the whole force of that term. 
Hence, suspecting that something wrong lay hid under the word, 
they rashly rejected and condemned the ouoovorov. But this 
may happen to persons who are ever so well acquainted with the 
languages. 

The rrrrH argument. It would follow that all men, who are 
not skilled in the Hebrew and Greek tongues, should always be in 


140 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. l'en. 


doubt whether it is the true scripture which they read. This 
argument Bellarmine hath omitted in the Sartorian edition ; having, 
perhaps, upon reflection disapproved ofit. Indeed it really contributes 
nothing towards confirming the authority of the Latin version. 

However I answer, in the first place, that the Church would 
act wisely in not permitting every one to publish a new version 
at his own caprice, and taking care that all versions should be as 
pure and faithful as possible. 

Secondly, men unskilled in the tongues, although they cannot 
judge of the sense of each separate passage, whether all be cor- 
rectly rendered, can yet, being instructed by the Holy Spirit, 
acknowledge and approve the doctrine. 

Thirdly, this argument no more proves the Latin to be authen- 
tic than any other version. For they themselves allow vernacular 
versions to the people under certain conditions. How then do 
those who are unlearned and illiterate understand that they are 
reading the true scripture? The unlearned in our country who 
read the English version of the Rhemists could never, if this 
argument have any weight, be certain that they read the true 
scripture. But Bellarmine hath himself renounced this argument. 

The Last argument is: The heretics, who despise the ancient 
editions, make various and mutually discordant editions of their 
own; so that Luther, in his book against Zwingle, was moved to 
say, that, if the world lasted long, it would again be necessary to 
receive the decrees of councils, on account of these diverse inter- 
pretations of scripture. IJ answer, in the first place, what sort of 
an argument is this? The editions of the heretics are various 
and discordant; therefore the old Latin edition is authentic. 
Secondly, we do not approve discordant editions and versions. 
Thirdly, we make no edition authentic, save the Hebrew in the old, 
and the Greek in the new, Testament. We approve translations, 
if they agree with these standards: we reject them if they do 
not. Fourthly, as to Luther, I do not know whether he said this 
or not. The slanderous Cochleus hath affirmed it of him. It isa 
matter of no moment. Such then are Bellarmine’s arguments. 

But Melchior Canus (Lib. 11. c. 13) hath made use of some others 
in this cause, but such as perhaps the Jesuit considered too futile. 
Of this kind is this (which Canus, however, thinks a noble argu- 
ment), that the scholastic theologians have followed this alone, and 
that the inquisitors of heretical pravity are wont to convince and 
condemn heretics out of it. I answer, in the first place, that those 
divines, whom they call scholastic, have drawn some most absurd 


vit. | : QUESTION THE SECOND. 141 


conclusions from the Latin Vulgate edition, as appears plainly from 
their books and disputations. I could produce a great many ex- 
amples. In Canticles, rr. 4, the old interpreter hath translated thus : 
Ordinavit in me caritatem. Hence Thomas (I believe a thousand 
times) proves that there is a certain order and certain degrees in 
charity. That all this is true and accordant with the scriptures, 
I allow: but it is supported by no authority from this place and 
testimony ; for the words should be translated otherwise: ** His 
banner towards me is charity." Again, Rom. xiii. 2 is read thus 
in the Vulgate: Que a Deo sunt, ordinata sunt. ^ Hence this 
same Thomas, undoubtedly the chief of all the schoolmen, collects 
in many places that all things are well and rightly constituted by 
God; and specially in Prima Secunde, q. 102, art. 1, he proves 
from these words, that ceremonial precepts have a reason. A 
question, verily, both proposed and concluded with singular wis- 
dom! For the place is most perversely rendered by that trans- 
lator; who first omits altogether the word é£ovota:, ** powers,” and 
then sets a comma after a Deo, when it should have been set before 
it: not to mention that the reading is ordinata, when it should be 
ordinate. Thus those theologians frequently abuse the errors of 
the Vulgate version, to confirm their own inventions. 





CHAPTER VIII. 


IN WHICH AN ANSWER IS GIVEN TO THE TEN REASONS OF THE 
ANGLO-RHEMIST TRANSLATORS, WHEREBY THEY ENDEAVOUR 
TO PROVE THE AUTHORITY OF THE VULGATE VERSION IN 
THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


Certain English popish divines, who have taken up their 
abode in the seminary of Rheims, some years since translated 
the new Testament into the English tongue, not from the Greek 
text, but from the old Latin Vulgate!. In order to persuade us 
of the wisdom and prudence of this proceeding, they produce in 
their preface ten reasons to prove that this Latin Vulgate edition 
is to be followed in all things rather than the Greek. We shall 
now briefly report and refute those reasons. 


[! It was first printed at Rheims in 4to in 1582. The principal transla- 
tors appear to have been Allen, Martin, and Bristow. ] 


142 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


I. This edition is so ancient that it hath been received in 
the church by the space of 1300 years, as appears from the fathers 
of those times. 

I answer: However ancient they make it out, yet they must 
needs confess that it is younger than the Greek edition. For the 
Greek was not only older than the Latin, but than all other ver- 
sions, which are but streams derived from the fountain of the 
Greek edition. If, then, an antiquity of 1300 years commends 
the Latin version, the Greek text should be yet more strongly 
commended to us, which we gather from the genuine monuments 
of those times to have been publicly received 1500 years ago in 
the churches of Christians, And it is marvellous that these noble 
translators did not bethink themselves, when they vaunted the 
antiquity of their version, that by this plea of antiquity more was 
gained for the Greek edition, which was undoubtedly the first and 
most ancient of all, than for this Latin Vulgate, and that by their 
own shewing. 

II. This is (as is commonly thought and most probable) that 
very same version which Jerome afterwards corrected from the 
Greek, by order of Damasus, as he writes in the preface to the 
Evangelists, in the catalogue at the end, and in the 102nd Epistle. 

I answer: First, they confess it to be by no means certain 
and clear, that this Vulgate Latin edition of the new Testament is 
altogether the same as that which Jerome corrected, since they say 
that the fact rests upon common opinion and probability alone. 
Now we, not doubtfully or only with some probable shew, but 
most certainly, know that this Greek edition of the new Testament 
is no other than the inspired and archetypal scripture of the. 
new Testament, commended by the apostles and evangelists to the 
christian church. 

Secondly, Jerome’s correcting the Latin edition from the Greek 
originals sufficiently shews, that the authority of the Greek is 
greater than that of the Latin edition. Jerome corrected the 
Latin from the Greek; but our Rhemists, on the contrary, deter- 
mine that the Greek should be corrected from the Latin. 

III. Consequently, it is the same which Augustine so highly 
praises and approves in a certain letter to Jerome, Ep. 10. 

I answer: In the first place, this plea depends upon the same 
opinion and conjecture as the preceding. Secondly, Augustine’s 
praise is not weighty enough to constitute an edition authentic. 
He praised also the Italic and many others, but preferred the Greek 


vill. | | QUESTION THE SECOND. 148 


to all, and would have them all corrected and estimated by the 
Greek.  Thirdly, Augustine praised that edition, not as absolutely 
authentie, but as more faithful than the rest. 

IV. This. is that same edition which thenceforth was almost 
always used in the church-offices, in sermons, in commentaries, in 
the writings of the ancient fathers of the Latin church. 

I answer: In the first place, for two hundred years after 
Jerome, and more, it never obtained any singular prerogative and 
authority, as we have already shewn. Secondly, I ask, Is it any 
consequence, that, because the Latin fathers and writers have made 
special use of this, it is therefore absolutely authentic and prefer- 
able to the Greek? Thirdly, Much more ought the Greek to be 
concluded authentie, which the churches of the Greeks have always 
used from the apostles' times in their publie liturgies, homilies, com- 
mentaries, and books. 

V. The sacred council of Trent, for these and many other 
very weighty reasons, hath defined this alone of all Latin trans- 
lations to be authentic. 

I answer: In the first place, that Tridentine Synod hath no 
authority with us. Secondly, What right had it to define this? 
Thirdly, It hath proposed no grounds of this decree, except this 
only,—that that edition had been for a long time received in the 
church; which reason, at least, every one must perceive to be 
unworthy of such great divines. Fourthly, I desire to know whe- 
ther the council of Trent only commanded this Latin edition to be 
considered the authentie one amongst Latin editions, or determined 
it to be absolutely authentic ? For if it only preferred this one to 
other Latin translations, that could be no reason to justify the 
Rhemists in not making their version of the new Testament from 
the Greek; since the council of Trent prefers this, not to the Greek 
edition, but to other Latin translations. Do they, then, make both 
this Latin and that Greek edition authentie, or this Latin only ? 
Indeed, they express themselves in such a manner as not to deny 
the authenticity of the Greek, while nevertheless they really hold 
no edition of either old or new Testament authentic, save this Latin 
Vulgate only. This is the judgment of these Rhemists who have 
translated the new Testament from the Latin; and this the Jesuits 
defend most strenuously, maintaining that, where the Latin differs 
from the Greek or Hebrew, we should hold by the Latin rather 
than the Greek or Hebrew copies. And it is certain that this is 
now the received opinion of the papists. 


144 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


VI. It is, of all others, the weightiest, purest, most venerable 
and impartial. 

I answer: 1. That all these virtues must needs be still greater 
in the Greek edition, which is that of the apostles and evangelists, 
and, finally, of the Holy Ghost himself, than in the Latin, which 
cannot derive the beginning of its credit and dignity higher than 
from the time and person of Jerome. 2. In many places it is 
absurd and erroneous, as will hereafter be shewn; and therefore, 
in such cases, destitute of weight, and majesty, and purity. 

VII. It agrees so exactly and thoroughly with the Greek, in 
regard both of the phrases and the words, that the fastidious here- 
tics have blamed it on that account as rude and unskilful. 

I answer: 1. That it is no great praise to be rude and 
unskilful. 2. If it deserves commendation for agreeing and cor- 
responding remarkably with the Greek, then it follows that the 
Greek itself is still more deserving of commendation. 3. It differs 
from the Greek in many places, as we shall see hereafter. 

VIIL The adversaries themselves, and Beza in particular, 
prefer this to all the rest. See his Preface to the new Testament, 
published in the year 1556. And elsewhere he says, that the old 
interpreter translated very religiously. Annot. in 1 Luc. v. 1. 

I answer: Although Beza hath preferred it to other versions 
in the translation of certain places, and said that the old interpreter 
seems to have translated the sacred books with religious care; yet it 
never came into his mind to prefer that Latin edition to the Greek, 
or to make it authentic, or pronounce that the Latin translator never 
erred. Nay, in this very place he blames the old interpreter for 
not understanding the difference between «A»poQopta and semoi- 
Ogciu. If Beza had thought this as perfect as they would have 
it, he would never have published a new translation of his own. 

IX. In other translations there is the greatest difference and - 
discordance. | 

I answer: 1. If it were agreed that this is better than all 
other translations, what would that be to the purpose? For it 
does not therefore follow, either that the Latin 1s authentie, or that 
ihe Rhemists ought to have translated the new Testament from 
the Latin, and not from the Greek. 2. They cannot find so great 
a difference between our versions, as there is between their Latin 
Vulgate and the Greek edition. 3. Although some of our trans- 
lations differ in some places, yet those places are not numerous, 
nor is the difference dangerous; since we do not say that one should 


virt. | QUESTION THE SECOND. 145 


stand by these translations as of themselves authentic, but appeal 
to the originals alone as truly authentic. 

X. It is not only better than all other Latin versions, but 
preferable even unto the Greek edition itself in those places where 
they differ. 

I answer: 1. Hence it appears what value these men set 
upon the Greek edition, who maintain that the Latin is superior to 
it in all those places where any discrepancy is found. 2. How 
false is this assertion we shall hereafter shew, and many other writers 
have already often and copiously demonstrated. 





CHAPTER IX. 


WHEREIN THE ARGUMENTS ARE EXPLAINED WHEREBY THE LATIN 
VULGATE EDITION IS PROVED NOT TO BE THE AUTHENTIC 
SCRIPTURE. 


Ir remains that we should shew by good and solid reasons, 
that this Latin. Vulgate edition is not to be esteemed authentic 
scripture. Upon which subject I might use many words, and 
adduce many arguments; but I shall endeavour to cut off all 
matters of inferior importance, and concern myself only with those 
things which are fitted to the immediate cause and question. 

The first argument. Jerome, who either made or amended 
this edition, did not himself deem it authentic, although it was then 
in a much purer state than it is at present. Nay, he left it to 
his readers to choose in many places between different interpre- 
tations, being doubtful whether they were rightly understood and 
rendered by himself. Sometimes he even ingenuously confesses 
that he hath translated otherwise than the Hebrew verity required. 
So Jonah iv. he translates “ivy,” following Aquila, not **a gourd” 
with the Septuagint; whereas in his Commentary on Jonah he 
teaches us that neither ivy nor gourd can be really denoted by 
the word. “For,” says he, “ gourds and ivy are naturally prone 
to creep upon the earth, and cannot gain any height without props 
and stays to support them!.” But he testifies that the shrub 
which the Lord prepared for Jonah supports itself by its own 


[! Cucurbita et hedera hujus nature sunt ut per terram reptent, et absque 
furcis vel adminiculis quibus innituntur altiora non appetant.— 7T. v1. p. 426.] 


[ WHITAKER. | E 


146 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


stem, and grows commonly in Palestine. If, therefore, Jerome 
hath not ventured to defend that edition every where, and in some 
places owns that it is very wide of the true sense of the Hebrew, 
it follows that it is not to be taken for authentic.  Assuredly 
Jerome never even so much as dreamed, that a time would come 
when the church would receive his translation for authentie scrip- 
ture. Since, therefore, our opponents ascribe this version to 
Jerome, and deem it to be commended by his authority, it is 
fair that in this question they should be ruled by the testimony 
and judgment of Jerome, and learn from Jerome himself that it 
is not authentic. 

The second argument. If this Latin edition were authentic, 
then the Latin church would have presently received it as authentic. 
The validity of the consequence may be perceived from the follow- 
ing consideration:—-Jerome, as they say, translated the old Tes- 
tament, and corrected the new, at the request of Damasus, Where- 
fore, if he had made this Latin edition, and delivered it to the 
church with the intention that it should everywhere be esteemed 
authentie scripture in the Latin churches; then it would have been 
forthwith received and approved by the judgment of the church 
and the order of the pontiff. But such was not the case. For 
in the time of pope Gregory, who lived in the Latin church more 
than two hundred years after Jerome, that version could not 
maintain exclusive sway, even in the Roman church, or be esteemed 
authentie, as is evident from Gregory's Preface to Job, c. v. If 
then it was neither published to serve as authentie, nor then held 
authentic when it was sounder and purer than it is at present, no 
one can, without extreme injustice, require us to reverence and 
follow it as authentic. ! 

The third argument. Jerome himself, whom these men make 
either the author or corrector of this edition, blames many things 
in it. Therefore he by no means deemed it authentic. The ante- 
cedent hath been proved by many previous testimonies; and the 
consequent needs no proof. For, if Jerome found and remarked 
many errors in this edition, it is certain that it could not have been 
regarded by him as either authentic or true. Now Jerome, in 
his Traditions upon Genesis and other books, shews many faults 
of this edition, which are still found in it. And, as to the answer 
of our adversaries,——that Jerome in his Commentaries judged some 
things to be wrongly translated, which afterwards, when he came 
to publish that Latin edition, he perceived to be quite correctly 


Ix. | QUESTION THE SECOND. | 147 


rendered, and therefore did not change; this pretence, I say, may 
be easily refuted, if we will only remember that those Comment- 
aries upon the Prophets, in which he often blames this Vulgate 
version, are later than that edition, as manifestly appears from 
Jerome's own words at the end of the Catalogue!. 

The fourth argument. Jerome was neither a prophet, nor en- 
dowed with a prophetic spirit. It is one thing to be a prophet, 
and another to be an interpreter of prophetic writings. So Jerome 
himself, in the Preface to the Pentateuch: “It is one thing to be 
a prophet, and another to be an interpreter. In the former case, 
the Spirit predicted future events; in the latter, learning and 
copious command of words translates what it understands?" Hence 
a conclusive argument may be formed. Since the Vulgate edition 
is nothing more than a version, it is not of itself authentic or 
inspired scripture. For it is the function of an interpreter to 
translate the authentic scripture, not to make his own translation 
authentic scripture. Now Jerome both might, and did err in 
translating. That he might have erred no one doubts, and Au- 
gustine in his 8th Epistle to Jerome takes it for granted. That 
he did err, Jerome himself ingenuously acknowledges in many 
places. Nay, though we were to suppose that Jerome never erred 
in translating, yet what answer can our adversaries give as to 
the Vulgate Latin version of the Psalms, which is widely different 
from the Hieronymian version? Finally, what account can they 
give of those parts of the Latin edition which are read in the 
Latin Bibles from the Greek version of Theodotion, a man most 
averse from the christian faith ? Will they affirm that Theodotion 
too, from whom they have received some of the fragmentary 
pieces in their collection, as either interpreter or author, was en- 
dowed with a prophetic spirit? I trow not. Wherefore this 
Latin edition, being put together by persons who both could and 
did err, cannot possibly be the authentic word of God and inspired 
scripture. 

And, whereas our adversaries object that, although Jerome 
was himself obnoxious to error, yet his version was approved by 
the church ;—-I answer first, that our assertion is not only 
that Jerome might have erred, but also that he hath committed 


[! (Vetus Testamentum) juxta Hebraicam transtuli .... multaque alia de 
opere prophetali, quze nunc habeo in manibus.—T. rr. p. 941.] 

[? Aliud est esse vatem, aliud esse interpretem. Ibi Spiritus ventura pree- - 
dixit; hic eruditio et verborum copia ea que intelligit transfert.] 


10—2 


148 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


great errors in this version, if it be his version; and this assertion 
we shall presently prove. Therefore if the church approved this 
version, it approved very many errors of translation. Secondly, 
the church hath not power of approving any man’s translation, 
however accurate, in such a manner as to pronounce it alone to be 
authentic scripture, and preferable to the sacred originals them- 
selves. For authentic scripture must proceed immediately from 
the Holy Ghost himself; and therefore Paul says that all scripture 
is divinely inspired, 2 Tim. iii. 16. Now Jerome’s translation is 
not divinely inspired; therefore it is not authentic scripture. 
Thirdly, the church hath never approved nor received as authentic 
this Latin edition before the very recent council of Trent. For 
if the church had ever approved it before, so many learned and 
catholic men would not have blamed this Latin version, as Lyra, 
Paul of Bruges, Richard of Armagh, Valla, Eugubinus, Isidore 
Clarius, John Isaac, Cajetan, Erasmus, Jacques De-Ferre, Ludo- 
vicus Vives, Lucas of Bruges, and many more. The Latin church 
did indeed use this version, because it was needful that Latin 
churches should have some Latin edition of the scriptures; but it 
never before made it authentic or canonical. Now first, in the 
Tridentine synod, we are commanded to receive the old Latin 
version as our authentic scripture. Whence we perceive that their 
authentic scripture is only the version, such as it is, of Jerome and 
others, one knows not whom. Their Moses, their prophets, their 
apostles, their evangelists, yea, their Christ, is Jerome: for, in 
receiving his writings as authentic, they attribute to him what 
truly appertains to Moses, the prophets, the apostles, the evange- 
lists, and Christ. 

The fifth argument. If God had permitted the scripture to 
perish in the Hebrew and Greek originals, in which it was first 
published by men divinely inspired, he would not have provided 
sufficiently for his church and for our faith. From the prophetic 
and apostolic scripture the church takes its origin, and the faith 
derives its source. But whence can it be ascertained that these 
are in all respects prophetic and apostolic scriptures, if the very 
writings of the prophets and apostles are not those which we con- 
sult? What reason can be alleged, why the authentic word of 
God should perish in those languages in which it was first pub- 
lished, and become authentic in a new tongue, into which it was 
translated by a man who was no prophet ? or why in the Latin, 
rather than in any other language ? 


IX. | QUESTION THE SECOND. 149 


The sixth argument. The ancient fathers of the Latin church 
did not all follow one edition, namely, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arno- 
bius, Lactantius, Victorius, Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome 
himself, Leo,-Gregory, Bede. Therefore there was not then one 
authentic edition through so many ages of the church. Which 
since experience shews to be a certain fact, why now must Latins 
have one authentic Latin edition? It might rather seem to have 
been more necessary then that there should have been one 
authentic edition, because there were then more Latin versions 
than there are now: for Augustine says that in his time they 
were innumerable (Doct. Christ. Lib. 1. c. 11); but those which 
are now extant may be easily counted. Yet the council of Trent 
willed that one out of many should be held authentic; and Andra- 
dius (Defen. Trid. Lib. 1v.) says that the synod acted wisely in 
determining that, out of the many which are now in men's hands, 
one should become and be esteemed authentic. If this be a good 
reason—an adequate cause— it was much more fit that there 
should have been one authentic edition in those times in which 
many more versions than now were everywhere in the hands of 
men. 

The seventh argument. I ask whether the council of Trent 
made this Latin edition authentie, or only declared it to be so? 
The reason of this question is, because they say that they receive 
the books of scripture from the church, not that they may be- 
come canonical and most holy, but that they may be so esteemed, 
as we shall hear afterwards. Is this Latin edition therefore now 
made by them authentie, or is it only declared to be authentic? 
If they say that it is now made authentic, it will follow that it was 
not authentic before. Then by what right could they make a 
non-authentie edition become authentic? In the same way it will 
be lawful for them to convert a book, which is not sacred, into 
sacred and canonical: which yet they profess not to arrogate to 
themselves the power of effecting, But if they only declared this 
edition authentic, let them tell us when it first began to be authentic. 
For at first, as we have shewn, it was not authentic. It behoves 
them therefore to let us know when, and from whom, it received 
the privilege of authenticity, if they will not profess that it was 
made authentic by themselves. 

The eighth argument. The Latin Vulgate edition is in many 
. places utterly barbarous aud full of solecisms: whence we collect 
that its author was very careless. I readily acknowledge that the 
style of scripture is simple and unadorned; and am so far from 


150 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


blaming it, that I admire it rather as divine. But in the authen- 
tic original scriptures you shall never find such barbarity and 
disgraceful solecisms as are everywhere occurring in the Latin 
Vulgate. Gen. xxi. 26: Non audivi preter hodie. Gen. xli. 13: 
Alius non est super,—for superest. Ps. lxvi. 20: Benedictus 
Dominus die quotidie. Ps. exxv. 1: In convertendo Dominus 
captivitatem Sion facti sumus sicut consolati. Matt. xxu.: Neque 
nubent neque nubentur. Matt. vi.: Nonne vos magis pluris estis 
is? Matt. xx. : Filius hominis non venit ministrari. Luc. vil. : 
Lamentavimus vobis. Luc. xxi.: Omnis populus manicabat ad 
eum. John xv.: Ut fructum plus afferat. | Acts i. : Ponitemini. 
James 1.: Deus intentator est malorum. These are expressed in 
the original quite otherwise, and with sufficient purity and elegance. 
Matt. xxii. 30: ovre vyapoUcw ovre exryapiCovTat. Matt. vi. 26: 
oux UMELS uaddov cvadbépere avtwv; Matt. xx. 28: o vios ToU 
avÜpomov ovk 5X0e éukovi vat dXXa &akovsjaas, Luke vii. 32: 
eOpnvycapev vuiv. Luke xxi. 38: mas 0 Aaós wpOpiCe pos 
avrov. John xv. 2: wa 7Aelova kapmov pepn. Acts in. 19: 

peravogcare. James i. 18: o Oeo; aTeipagTós ETTL TOV KAaKOD. 
In these Greek expressions there is no lack either of purity or of 
elegance. But the Latin are such that nothing can be conceived 
more barbarous or absurd.  Assuredly the Holy Spirit is never 
wont to speak so barbarously and foolishly. For though there be in 
the holy scriptures some pendent sentences, and inversions, and ap- 
parent solecisms, and other things of that kind, yet the same may be 
found in the most eloquent and approved authors ; so that nothing 
occurs in the originals, as far as the style and diction are con- 
cerned, for which one cannot find a parallel in some approved 
writer. But those Latin expressions are strange and unparalleled ; 
nor did ever any man speak in this style, who knew or cared how 
to speak, Jerome, in his letter to Paulinus, says that this 
rudeness, which is found in versions of the scriptures, hath occurred 
partly through the fault of the translators. It is a fault therefore 
to translate foolish] and awkwardly what is capable of being 
neatly rendered ; and the examples adduced shew it to be a fault 
into which this interpreter hath fallen. It is true indeed that 
every thing, especially in sacred writings, must not be brought 
strictly to the rules of Donatus!, as Gregory reminds us in his 
preface to Job: but the scriptures, though never superstitiously 
exact, are everywhere clear and pure, and, I will add too, elo- 
quent. So writes Augustine (Doct. Christ. Lib. 1v. c. 6) excel- 


[1 A famous grammarian.] 


1X] QUESTION THE SECOND, 151 


lently well: * Here perhaps some one may ask whether our 
writers are only to be styled wise, or to be called eloquent also ?” 
Which question Augustine answers thus: “ Where I understand 
them, nothing can seem not only wiser but more eloquent than 
they are. And I venture to say, that all who rightly understand 
what they say, understand at the same time that they ought to 
have said it in no other manner*.” He observes that there is one 
kind of eloquence which becomes youth, and another which is suit- 
able to age; and that nothing, which is not suited to the person of 
the speaker, can deserve to be called eloquence: in a word, that 
there is a certain kind of eloquence suitable to divine writings, and 
that the sacred writers possess this kind of eloquence. Any other 
would not have become them, nor this any other writers. 

The ninth argument. The Papists themselves maintain that the 
originals are useful; but the points of utility which they enumerate 
prove the originals to be even necessary, and that the original 
scripture in both testaments is more authentic than the Latin 
edition. Bellarmine tells us of four occasions upon which we may 
recur to the Hebrew and Greek originals. 1. Where there seems 
to be a mistake of the transcribers in the Latin copies; of which 
he produces some examples, and of which very many might be 
produced. 1 Sam xix. 24, the Vulgate had for many ages, 
Cecinit nudus tota, illa die. If you look at the Hebrew original, 
you will see that one should read cecidit, not cecinit. Yet they 
persist in retaining the latter (cecinit) in the text, and write cecidit 
in the margin.  Ecclus. xxiv. 30, the old edition hath, and hath 
had this long time back, Ego quasi fluvius Dorix. If you ask 
what river that is, Rabanus tells you in his commentary upon 
this place, that there is a river in Armenia which is called the 
Dorix. But the Louvain editors have noted that we should read 
vorax ; and Bellarmine corrects it from the Greek, Ego quasi 
fluvius Dioryx. For * ouwpve,” says he, “signifies a trench 
dug from a river to irrigate the ground.” Be it so: but what 
Latin writer ever used this term? or what are we to think of 


[? Hie aliquis forsitan queerit, utrum auctores nostri...... sapientes tan- 
tummodo, an eloquentes etiam nuncupandi sunt. Que quidem questio apud 
meipsum, et apud eos qui mecum quod dico sentiunt, facillime solvitur. 
Nam ubi eos intelligo, non solum nihil eis sapientius, verumetiam nihil 
eloquentius mihi videri potest. Et audeo dicere omnes, qui recte intelligunt 


quod illi loquuntur, simul intelligere non eos aliter loqui debuisse.—T. 1i. 
p. 88. Bassan. 1797.] 


152 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


such a Latin version? or, if this be the true reading, why is not 
the old one corrected, but even still, when the error hath been 
detected, left to remain in their books?  Eeclus. xlv. 6 : it is read 
in the Vulgate, and so in the old missals, Dedit et cor ad pre- 
cepta. But the Louvain editors have corrected the place thus, 
coram precepta ; and Bellarmine approves that emendation, since 
the Greek exhibits cata mpdcwrov'!, and says that it is now so 
corrected in the new missals. But why is it not amended in the 
Bibles? Is this your solicitude, to have your missals more correct 
than your Bibles? So again the old books exhibit that place in 
Psal xl., ad Deum fontem vivum?: but Bellarmine thinks it 
might safely be changed to ad Deum fortem vivum, as is plainly 
required by the evidence of the Hebrew and Greek copies. Yet, 
though this be certainly the case, they still retain fontem in the 
text, and only set fortem in the margin. Again, Deut. iv. 23?, the 
old Latin books have sulphure et solis ardore comburens ; whereas 
the Hebrew text shews that the true reading is salts, not solis: 
which error I am surprised that the Louvain editors did not per- 
ceive, and correct at least in the margin. An infinite number of 
other like examples might be given; and Canus (Lib. zr. c. 15) 
hath adduced many in which it is obviously evident that the Latin 
edition is corrupt, and requires to be corrected from the Hebrew 
and Greek originals. Do we not hence see that the original edi- 
tion possesses greater purity and authority than this Vulgate 
Latin? The Latin books must be corrected from the originals, 
not the originals from the Latin edition: therefore the Latin edi- 
tion is less authentic than the original scripture. 

Bellarmine’s second occasion is, when the Latin copies present 
such various readings as to make it impossible to determine which 
is the true. For example, in Joshua v. some copies of the Vul- 
gate edition have*, Quibus juravit ut ostenderet eis terram; 
others, ut non ostenderet, with a directly contrary sense. The 
latter, says Bellarmine, is said to be the truer, because in the 


[1 kai €Soxey ait@ Kata mwpóocmov évroAàs, vóuov (os kai émiornuns. Ec- 
clus. xlv. 5, ed. Grabe.] 

[? Ps. xlii. 2, in the Hebrew, TON. In the Greek, ps rv Gedy riv 
Cavra. | 

[? This is a mistake. The true reference is Deut. xxix. 22, where the 


Hebrew is, MDIW nom  n"3.] 
[4 ver. 6. DD mos D mim yaw.) 


1x] | QUESTION THE SECOND. 153 


Hebrew text the negative is constantly added. Why then do 
their books retain the former, which they themselves know and 
confess to be false? So again, Josh. xi.5, some copies have, Mon 
fuit civitas que non se traderet ; some, on the contrary, que se 
traderet. And this is affirmed to be the truer reading, because it 
agrees with the Hebrew and is required by the context. So 
Luke i.6 in the common books we read, Redemptionem plebis 
sue: but it is evident that we should read plebi suc, because 
the Greek is r9 Aag avrov. Thus they allow that their Latin 
edition, which they determine to be alone authentie, hath in it 
many things not only futile, but even utterly wrong, and that it 
may be judged of and corrected by the originals. Meanwhile, 
however, errors of this kind are not removed, but preserved in 
their Bibles. Who, then, will not much rather trust the originals 
than this Vulgate edition ? 

The third occasion is, when the Latin copies have something 
ambiguous, either in the expression or in the sense. Bellarmine 
gives some examples: one is taken from Luke i7, Hominibus 
bone voluntatis. The words, bone voluntatis, may be referred, 
he thinks, either to homines, or to pax, but more correctly to the 
latter; so that the sense shall be, ** on earth peace to men, peace 
(I say) of the good-will of God towards men." For evdoxia is the 
good-will of God towards men. If this be true, as Bellarmine justly 
deems, our Rhemists have erred grossly, in gathering from this 
place a proof of the freedom of the human will. 

Fourthly, we may recur to the original, in order to discover 
the full energy and propriety of the terms: which opens to us a 
very wide door. For in the well-spring every thing is more 
emphatie than in the streams of the translations; which not a 
little illustrates their inferior excellence and dignity. 

Melchior Canus, Lib. 11. c. 15, sets forth many advantages which 
attend a knowledge of the originals. First, when we dispute with 
infidels. Secondly, when we wish to explain the peculiar emphasis 
of terms. Thirdly, to help us to a number of meanings. Fourthly, 
to give us an acquaintance with the idioms, phrases, and proverbs, 
of a foreign tongue.  Fifthly, to correct errors. Sixthly, to shew 
us the meaning of some places which cannot be explained without a 
knowledge of languages. Seventhly, to escape the doubtfulness 


[5 ver. 19.] 
[9 v. 68, emoince Nitpwow rà Xa abro).] 
[7 v. 14, where the Vulgate reads evSoxias.] 


154 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cu. 


and ambiguity of the Latin.  Eighthly, to give us right interpre- 
tations of some terms in common use, as Anathema, Maranatha, and 
the like. That all these advantages may be obtained from the 
originals, they allow. Consequently, I may argue thus from their 
own confession: That edition which is corrupt, faulty, ambiguous, 
futile, and neither explains the meaning nor teaches the majesty of 
the Holy Spirit, nor hath light enough in itself to illustrate the 
diction and sense of scripture, is not authentic. Now the Latin 
Vulgate edition is such, by the ingenuous confession of our adver- 
saries themselves. Therefore it is not authentic: and consequently 
the Hebrew and Greek are authentic; because not only are they 
free from those faults and disadvantages with which the Latin is 
replete, and adorned with all those privileges which are by no 
means conceded to the Latin, but even they, who press the Latin 
edition upon us as authentic, are compelled to have recourse to the 
Hebrew and Greek, and appeal to them as to a superior judge. 
And now I would desire to put this question to them: Since 
the Louvain divines have found many mistakes and faults in their 
Latin Bibles, and have indicated them in the margin, what reading 
is it which they determine to be authentic—the old one of the text, 
or the new one of the margin? Ifthe old, why have they branded 
it, and changed it in their missals? If the new, why do they not 
receive it into the text, but leave it to stand, as it were, without 
upon the threshold? I will make the matter plain by a single 
example. In Proverbs xvi. 11, the old copies of the Latin edition 
have this reading; ‘“ Pondus et statera judicia Dei sunt, et opera 
ejus omnes lapides seculi. They now perceive that it should be 
read, “et opera ejus omnes lapides sacculi;" for the Hebrew word 
denotes a scrip, or purse, or little bag!. Here there is no doubt 
that the reading seculi is erroneous. Yet the author of the Com- 
mentary upon Proverbs, which appears amongst the works of 
Jerome, reads seculi, and explains “the stones of eternity" to 
mean just men and strong in faith. No doubt a most brave expo- 
sition!  Innumerable similar instances might be found in Latin 
authors, who, for the last thousand years, and from the time that 
this version began to prevail in the Latin churches, deluded by 
the mistakes and faults of this edition, have invented absurd opi- 
nions and interpretations in consequence. So that passage in Wis- 
dom, xii. 15, which the Louvain editors now read thus in their 


[| o».] 


1x. | QUESTION THE SECOND. 155 


Bibles, “Qui non debet puniri, condemnare exterum estimas a 
virtute tua?," was formerly read thus: ** Qui non debet puniri, 
condemnas, et exterum estimas a tua virtute." For Gregory upon 
Job (Lib. rm. c.. 11) understands it of God the Father, who deli- 
vered up to death Christ, the most righteous of all men, and 
deserving of no punishment. Thus this fault hath remained more 
than a thousand years in the Latin books. Wherefore, if that 
reading be false (as it certainly is), then the Latin church hath 
followed a false, and consequently by no means authentic, reading, 
in an infinite number of places,—for of such places the number is 
infinite. So Canticles ii. at the end, the old books have ‘“ Super 
montes Bethel.” But the Louvain critics bid us read Bether for 
Bethel; which is confirmed also by the Hebrew verity. Yet Gre- 
gory, a thousand years ago, read the text just as it used to be read 
in their corrupt copies; from which circumstance we may perceive 
the great antiquity of that corruption. For, in his Commentary 
upon the Canticles, he interprets Bethel in this place to mean the 
church, as that in which God dwells. Thus almost all the Latin 
expositors read and expound that place, in which, nevertheless, 
unless by means of a corruption, no mention of Bethel can be 
found. ; 
The tenth argument. That scripture which was authentic for 
the old Testament before Christ, and for both old and new six 
hundred years after Christ, should now also be deemed authentic 
by us. Now the Hebrew edition of the old, and the Greek of the 
new Testament, was always held the authentic scripture of God in 
the christian churches for six hundred years after Christ. This, 
therefore, ought to be received by us also as authentic scripture. 
If they doubt the major, we must ask them, Whether the church 
hath changed its authentic scripture, or hath not rather preserved, 
and commended to all succeeding generations, that which was in 
truth authentic from the very first? If it lost that which was 
published by the prophets and apostles, who can defend that neg- 
ligence, who excuse so enormous a sacrilege? If it lost it not, 
then let it deliver to us the writings of the prophets and apostles, 
and approve them by its testimony as the authentic word of God ; 
not substitute for this divinely-promulgated scripture a mere trans- 
lation of it into Latin, not made by either prophets or apostles ; 
nor persuade us that such a document as this is the authentic word 


[2 In the Greek, rév pr dpeovta KoracOjva Karadixdaat àXXórptov ium 
pevos THs ons Suvapeas. | 


156 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


of God. In which proceeding they really assume to themselves 
the privilege of doing that which they allow themselves incompe- 
tent to do. For those who make scripture authentie, make it 
canonical; since it is only authentie scripture that is canonical, and 
it is canonical, because it is authentic. Now they have made their 
scripture authentie, forasmuch as it was not authentic previously. 
Therefore they make scripture canonical; which yet they confess 
not to be placed in the power and judgment of the church. 

To return to the argument. I suppose that no one doubts the au- 
thentieity of the Hebrew edition of the old Testament in Christ's time. 
But now it may be demonstrated by many testimonies of the fathers, 
that the Hebrew edition of the old, and the Greek of the new 
Testament, was held authentic in the church for many ages after 
Christ. Jerome, in his book against Helvidius, writes thus: * We 
must suppose that the water of the fountain ran much clearer than 
that of the stream," The same author, in his letter to Sunnia and 
Fretella, observes: * ÀÁs in the new Testament we recur to the 
fountain of the Greek language, in which the new Testament is 
written, so in the old Testament we recur to the Hebrew verity *.” 
So, in his letter to Marcella, at the end of the second volume: “I 
wish to recal the corruption of the Latin copies to the Greek ori- 
ginal?." And in his Preface to the Pentateuch he rejects as absurd 
the opinion of those persons, who said that the Latin copies were 
more correct than the Greek, and the Greek than the Hebrew. 

To the same effect in his Commentary on Zechariah, chap. viii.: 
* We are compelled to have recourse to the Hebrews, and to seek 
certain knowledge of the truth from the fountain rather than from 
the streamlets*" Yea, in his Epistle to Vitalis he writes that he 
was wont to betake himself to the Hebrew verity, as a sort of 
citadel and fortress?*. To this we may add the consideration, that 


[! Multo purior manare credenda est fontis unda quam rivi. ] 

[2 Sicut in novo Testamento ....recurrimus ad fontem Greeci sermonis, 
quo novum scriptum est instrumentum; ita in veteri Testamento ad Hebraicam 
veritatem confugimus.—T. I. p. 637.] 

[? Latinorum codicum vitiositatem ad Greecam originem volui revocare. — 
T mop: 132] 

[* Cogimur ad Hebreeas recurrere, et scientize veritatem de fonte magis 
quam de rivulis quzerere.— T. vi. p. 851.] 

[5 Si quidem in historiis aliter haberent Lxx. interpretes, aliter Hebraica 
' veritas; confugere poteramus ad solita preesidia, et arcem linguse tenere ver- 
nacule.—T. I. p. 434.] 


ix.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 157 


Damasus urged Jerome to the task of correcting the new Testa- 
ment from the Greek; that prelate being sufficiently aware that 
the Greek deserved to be preferred by a great deal to all the 
Latin copies. Much to the same purpose may be found in Am- 
brose, de Spiritu Sancto, Lib. rr. c. 6%, and in his book, de Incarn. 
Domin. Sacram. c. 87: also in Augustine de Doctr. Christ. Lib. 1. 
c. 78, and elsewhere. From Augustine, Gratian hath transcribed 
in his Decree what we read Dist. 9, cap. Ut veterum: ** As the 
correctness of the old books is to be estimated by the Hebrew 
volumes, so the truth of the new requires the standard of the 
Greek text?." Also, in his City of God (Lib. xv. c. 13), Augustine 
makes a large defence of the Jews, and reminds us, that “we 
must not trust a translation so implicitly as the language from 
which interpreters made that translation into a different one!9," 
Ludovieus Vives thus comments upon that chapter: “The same 
answer may be given to those who object that the MSS. of the old 
Testament have been falsified and corrupted by the Jews, and 
those of the new by the Greeks, to prevent us from seeking the 
true sense of the sacred books from those originals," 

But our adversaries allow that what the fathers write of the 
authority of the originals was true indeed formerly; and they 
would not deny that we ought to do the same, if the Hebrew and 
Greek originals were stil uncontaminated. But they maintain 
that those originals are now corrupted, and that therefore the 
Latin streamlet is deserving of more regard than the ancient well- 
spring. Hence it is now the earnest effort of the popish theolo- 
gians, and the champions of the council of Trent, to persuade us 
of the depravation of the original seriptures. In the conduet of 
which argument, however, some are more keen and impudent than 


[6 Lib. rr. c. 5. $ 42. T. vr. Paris. 1839. p. 341.] 

[7 $ 82. p. 475, ut supra. Ita enim et in Grecis codicibus invenimus, 
quorum potior auctoritas est. ] 

[8 c. 13. ed. Bruder. Lipsize, 1838. ] 

[9 Ut veterum librorum fides de Hebreis voluminibus examinanda est, 
ita novorum Greeci sermonis normam desiderat.—Decret. p. 1. Dist. ix. c. vi. 
The title does indeed ascribe these words to Augustine, but the note, more 
correctly, to Jerome, Epist. 28. ad Lucinium B:eticum.] 

[10 Ei linguz potius credatur, unde est in aliam per interpretes facta 
translatio. ] 

[11 Hoc idem responderi potest his qui falsatos corruptosque et ab Hebreeis 
codices veteris instrumenti, et a Grecis novi objiciunt, ne veritas sacrorum 
librorum ex illis fontibus petatur.—Ludov. Vives, Annot. p. 459. ed. Froben.] 


158 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ OH. 


others. For Lindanus, De optimo Genere Inter., Lib. 1. c. 11, and 
Canus, Lib. 1r. c. 13, pretend most slanderously that the originals 
are utterly corrupted. But others come to much more moderate 
and equitable conclusions. Neither party, however, can do any- 
thing really serviceable to the cause of the authentic authority 
of the Latin edition, until they can shew us that not only the 
originals are corrupt in some places, but even generally more 
corrupt than the Latin copies; which is beyond what any papist 
hitherto hath hoped to demonstrate. Bellarmine is of the number 
of those who treat the originals with some respect; and conse- 
quently he refutes the opinion of Lindanus and Canus. Neverthe- 
less, lest he should seem not to approve the Tridentine Decree, he 
maintains that there are some corruptions in the original text. Let 
us see what sort of corruptions he speaks of. 

In order, then, to shew that the Hebrew originals are not 
absolutely pure, Bellarmine proposes five places, which he thinks 
undoubtedly corrupt. The first place is Is. ix. 6, where he says 
that we should read, * He shall be called Wonderful; as Calvin 
also contends. But the Hebrew text not only does not exhibit 
Jikkare, [87°] “he shall be called," but does exhibit jikra, [Np] 
‘the shall call.” I answer;—first, as to the sense, it makes no differ- 
ence whether we read, * His name shall be called Wonderful,” or 
** He shall call (i. e. God the Father shall call) his name Wonderful.” 
So Junius and Tremellius have rendered it, in conformity with the 
present Hebrew reading, **vocat;" which they would not have 
done, if they had supposed that there was any important difference 
in the sense. Secondly, the opinion of some, that we should rather 
read in the passive than in the active, does not prove the originals 
. to be corrupted. The points indeed require the latter reading, 
but the letters will bear either. Thirdly, the Hebrew doctors tell 
us, as Vatablus observes upon this place!, that verbs of the third 
person are often used impersonally by the Hebrews, as “ he shall 
call" [one shall call], for “he shall be called." 

The second place is Jerem. xxiii. 6, in which we should read, 
as Calvin thinks also, * This is his Name, whereby they shall call 


[! So Buxtorf, Thes. Gramm. Lib. rm. c. 10. “Tertize persons verba 
seepissime quoque usurpantur indefinite et quasi impersonaliter, nullo nomi- 
nativo expresso." He cites Is. ix. 6, Jerem. xxiii. 6, as instances. "There are 
some remarks upon this idiom, both very curious and very valuable, in 
Gataker, de Stylo N. T. pp. 66—72. London, 1648. Cf. Nordheimer’s 
Hebrew Syntax, $ 763, New York, 1841.] 


Ix. | QUESTION THE SECOND. 159 


him, The Lord our Righteousness.” But the Hebrew text reads 
constantly in the singular, * he shall call,” not “they shall call.” I 
answer, in the first place, That we plainly perceive this place not 
to be corrupt from the circumstance, that of old in Jerome’s time 
it was read exactly as it is read at present. For Jerome left it 
optional with us to read it either in the singular or the plural; 
and the Seventy, before Jerome, rendered the word xaAécei, 
* he shall call.’ Secondly, the Hebrew word may be rendered, 
“they shall call,” as Vatablus, Pagninus, and Arias Montanus 
have translated it. Thirdly, if we read “He shall call,” as 
our Hebrew text invites us, the sense will be neither impious 
nor unsuitable, as is plain from the annotations of Junius and 
Tremellius. 

The third place is Ps. xxii. 17. All Christians read, * They 
pierced my hands and my feet." But the Hebrew MSS. have not 
Caru, [332] “they pierced,” but Caari, [INQ] “as a Lion.” I 
answer, that this is the only specious indication of corruption in 
the Hebrew original; yet it is easy to protect this place also 
from their reproaches. For, first, learned men testify that 
many Hebrew copies are found in which the reading in Caru; 
Andradius, Defens. Trid. Lib. 1v., and Galatinus, Lib. vim. c. 17. 
And John Isaac writes that he had himself seen such a copy, 
in his book against Lindanus, Lib. r.; and the Masorites them- 
selves affirm that it was so written in some corrected copies? 
Secondly, in those books which have this reading, the Masorites? 
tell us that it is not to be taken in the common acceptation : 
whence it plainly appears that nothing was farther from their minds 
than a design to corrupt the passage. Thirdly, the place is now 
no otherwise read than it was formerly before Jerome’s time. 
For the Chaldee Paraphrast hath conjoined both readings‘, and 
the Masorites testify that there is a twofold reading of this place. 
Jerome, too, in his Psalter read in the Hebrew Caari, as our 
books have it, though he rendered it “fixerunt.” So that it 
can never be proved, at least from this place, that the Hebrew 
originals were corrupted after the time of Jerome. 

The fourth place is Ps. xix. 5, where the Hebrew copies have, 


[2 In the textual Masora on Numb. xxiv. 9, J9N5 5343 '""oUs3 
an.) 

[3 The smaller Masora on Ps. xxii. 17, "Suns SAN. pap 4.) 

[4 5533 *TN iT^N2 T7 pnm23. “They pierced, like a lion, my 
hands and my feet.”] : | 


160 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


“their line! went into all the earth ;” whereas the Septuagint render 
it, POoyyos avre@v, “their sound;” and Paul hath approved that 
reading, Rom. x. 18. I answer with Genebrard, in his Scholia 
upon the passage, that the Hebrew term does indeed denote a 
line, but the Septuagint regarded the general sense, and were 
followed by the apostle. For that line, or (as Tremellius trans- 
lates it) delineation of the heavens,—that is, that frame and 
structure of the heavenly orbs, smoothed as it were by the rule, 
proclaims the infinite power and wisdom of the divine artist. 

The fifth place is Exod. chap. ii, in which this whole sentence 
is wanting: * He begat another also, and called his name Eliezer, 
saying, The God of my father hath helped me, and delivered me 
from the hand of Pharaoh?.” I answer, that in this place it is the 
Latin rather than the Hebrew copies that are corrupt. For the 
asterisk which the Latin editions, even that of Louvain, prefix 
to these words, is a brand which shews that the whole sentence 
should be removed from the Latin books ; and this the more learned 
and candid of the papists themselves confess. For so Cajetan 
writes in his commentary upon that place: “This whole paragraph 
about the second son is superfluous®.” 

These then are the passages which Bellarmine was able to find 
fault with in the originals; and yet in these there is really nothing 
to require either blame or correction. But, even though we should 
alow (which we are so far from doing, that we have proved the 
contrary), that these were faulty in the original, what could our 
adversaries conclude from such an admission? Would it follow that 
the Hebrew fountain was more corrupt than the Latin streamlets, 
or that the Latin edition was authentic? Not, surely, unless it 
were previously assumed, either that canonical books of scripture 
cannot be erroneously copied sometimes by transcribers, or that 
it is not very easy for us to discover many more errors in the 
Latin edition which ought not, and cannot be defended, as we 
shall hear presently. 

Here indeed the Jesuit hath betrayed the papal cause. For, 
to maintain the reasonableness of the Tridentine decree, we must 


[| DIP. See Pococke in his Appendix to Maimonidis Porta Mosis, c. iv. 
pp. 47—51.] 

[2 Alium quoque genuit, et vocavit nomen ejus Eliezer, dicens, Deus patris 
mei auxiliatus est mihi, et liberavit me e manu Pharaonis. —Exod. ii. 22.] 

[3 Tota ista particula de secundo filio superflua est.—Cajet. in Penta- 
teuch. p. 82. 2. Rome. 1531.] 


Ix. | | QUESTION THE SECOND. 161 


assert that the Hebrew text is utterly corrupt, and the Latin 
uncorrupted; which Lindanus and Canus endeavour to do; and 
that, constrained by the authority of this Tridentine decree: but 
Bellarmine is so far from doing this, that he censures Lindanus and 
Canus for saying that the Hebrew originals have been corrupted 
by the Jews; which thesis, although these men assert it with 
strenuous earnestness, hath been long since exploded by the senate 
(so to speak) of more learned and sound-minded papists. Sixtus 
Senensis, Lib. vir. c. 2, delivers his opinion thus: “It cannot be said 
that the divine scriptures of the old Testament have been falsified 
by the malice either of Jews or Christians‘ :" which he presently de- 
monstrates by many arguments. We might adduce similar passages 
from other popish authors, Now then, if the originals of sacred serip- 
ture have not been so disgracefully corrupted by any malice of Jews 
or adversaries, as some persons have ignorantly suspected ; and if no 
mistakes have crept into the originals, but such as may casually 
be introduced into any book, (which our opponents expressly allow ;) 
why, I pray, did not the Tridentine fathers rather command 
that the originals should be purified with the greatest care and 
diligence than that the muddy stream of the Latin edition should 
be preferred to the fountain, and become authentic? For they who 
assert the Latin to be authentic scripture, close up the Hebrew and 
Greek fountains. Indeed these men are unwilling to seem to do 
this; and yet they do it nevertheless, when they determine the 
originals not to be authentic. Thus, therefore, I frame my argu- 
ment: If the originals are not authentic, it must be because they 
are corrupt. But they are not corrupt: therefore they are 
authentic. Upon the major we shall have no dispute. For what 
other reason can be assigned for denying, that books which were 
authentic once, should still be so, and be so esteemed at pre- 
sent? As to the minor, if they answer that they are corrupt; 
I demand, whether by the deliberate malice of adversaries, or 
by chance? If they say the former,— what adversaries do they 
mean? In the case of the old Testament they can dream of none 
except the Jews. Now the Jews are, as you have heard, acquitted 
by the very papists, and by Bellarmine himself, and are indeed 
wholly free from blame. For when could they have made these 
corruptions? Neither before Christ, nor for 400 years after 
Christ. For then Christ and the doctors of the church would have 

[4 Dici non potest divinas veteris Testamenti scripturas aut Judeeorum 
aut Christianorum malignitate falsatas. p. 613. Paris. 1610.) 


[wHITsKER. | 11 


162 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ CH. 


blamed them upon that score; whereas, on the contrary, they praise 
their fidelity and diligence in preserving the originals, and call them 
the book-keepers (capsarii) of the scriptures!. Besides, if the Jews had 
wished to corrupt the original scriptures, they would have laid their 
sacrilegious hands specially upon those places which concern Christ 
and confirm the faith. But in those places these fountains run so clear 
that one feels no lack: nay, they sometimes run far clearer than the 
Latin streams. For instance, in Psalm ii. the Latin copies have, Am- 
plectimini disciplinam ; which reading says nothing emphatical of 
Christ. But the Hebrew original leads us at once to the Son of 
God, and celebrates his far-extended sway over all: * Kiss the 
Son.” The same may be affirmed of many other passages. John 
Isaac, the Jew, in his second book against Lindanus, writes that 
more than two hundred arguments against Jewish opinions may be 
drawn more strongly from the Hebrew text than from the Latin 
translation. To the same effect Andradius (Defens. Lib. iv.): 
“Those who handle the Hebrew text with piety and religious care, 
meet in it with much larger testimonies to Christ than in the Latin 
and Greek?" This was testified long ago also by Jerome, in his 
74th Epistle to Marcella®. But if they say that the originals are 
only corrupted by some accident, we too may affirm the same, and 
with much more justice, of their own Latin version: for such 
accidental causes extend no less to the Latin than to the Hebrew 
and Greek books. 

The eleventh argument. The Latin Vulgate edition is most 
certainly and most plainly corrupt. And the corruptions I speak of 
are not casual, or slight, or common errors, such as the careless- 
ness of copyists often produces in books; but errors deeply rooted 
in the text itself, important and intolerable. Hence is drawn the 
weightiest argument against the authority of this edition. Upon 
this subject many excellently learned men, even of the popish party, 
have written,—Valla, Isaac, Erasmus (if indeed they rank him in 
their number at all), and Clarius, whom Canus censures most 
severely upon this account: but the thing is certain and manifest. 
Yet here the Jesuit, who hitherto did not dare to accuse the 
Hebrew originals, toils hard to save the credit of the Latin edition, 


[| E.g. Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. xli. n. 14. T. rv. Contr. Faust. L. xir. 
c. 23. T. vir. &c. ] 

[? Qui Hebreea pie et religiose tractant, multo in illis ampliora de Christo 
testimonia quam in Latinis Greecisque offendunt. ] 

(3 T. 1. p. 150. Ep. 32.] 


IX. | . QUESTION THE SECOND. 163 


and is large in his replies to Chemnitz, Calvin, and others. In 
which task he has no more formidable adversary than himself. 
For, unless the Hebrew and Greek originals be most foully corrupt, 
it follows that this Latin edition is most foully corrupt, inasmuch as 
it differs widely in all the books from those originals. Who does 
not see from this that either the originals are corrupted, or the 
Latin Vulgate edition is full of innumerable errors? For, where the 
difference and opposition of the readings 1s so great as is actually 
found between the originals and the Latin edition, it cannot be said 
or conceived that every thing is sound and uncorrupted. Bellarmine 
therefore cannot possibly defend them both together; and he must 
necessarily confess either the Hebrew original of the old, and the 
Greek of the new Testament, or else the Latin edition in both Tes- 
taments, to labour under most wretched depravation. For whoever 
will compare the Latin with the originals, shall find almost every- 
where a remarkable discordance. Were I to go in detail through all 
the errors of this edition, I should never make an end, and should 
weary your attention with a vain prolixity. You may spend your 
leisure in reading what others have written upon the subject. It 
shall suffice for me to discharge what my duty requires, and to lay 
before you some faults of this edition, from which it will plainly appear 
that it is really corrupt and erroneous. And, though I might bring 
forward many passages, and follow the regular order of the several 
books and chapters, I shall prefer to tread in the steps of Bellarmine, 
and examine his defence of certain places. He first proposes 
severally and defends the faults of the Vulgate edition of the old 
Testament which had been censured by Chemnitz, then those by 
Calvin in the Psalms, lastly those by others in the Latin edition of 
the new Testament. These let us now examine, and, as occasion 
offers, interpose a few remarks. 





CHAPTER X. 


WHEREIN CERTAIN CORRUPT PLACES IN THE VULGATE EDITION OF 
THE OLD TESTAMENT ARE SET FORTH. 


Tue first place is Gen. iii.4: Ipsa conteret caput tuum. So it 
is wrongly and corruptly read in the Vulgate. For the reading 
[ ver. 15. UNO FEW NT] 

11—2 


164 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


ought to be Z7pse or Ipsum, so as to make the reference to the Seed 
of the woman, not to the woman herself. Bellarmine affirms that 
it is not improbable that the true reading is Zpsa, and that many 
of the ancients read so; and that, as to the verb, which is in the 
Hebrew of the masculine gender, being coupled with a noun in the 
feminine, we must consider that there is a great mystery contained 
in that construction—namely, that the woman crushes the serpent’s 
head, not by herself but by her Son. However, he hath omitted 
to notice this mystery in the Sartorian edition. 

I answer. Though all the fathers were to say that we should 
read Ipsa, yet it should by no means be admitted or approved. 
For the Hebrew copies constantly read Hu; the Septuagint exhibits 
avros; ihe Chaldee Paraphrase confirms the same reading; and 
lastly, some copies of the Vulgate edition retain Zpse, some Ipsum. 
Finally, the very drift of the sentence requires that we should 
understand it of the Seed of the woman, not of the woman. 
What woman could crush the serpent’s head? Was it Mary? I 
am well aware that this is what is said by them. But how? When 
she bore Christ? But to bear Christ is not to crush the head of 
the serpent: to give birth to him by whom the serpent’s head is 
crushed is one thing, and to crush the head of the serpent is another. 
Was it when she believed in Christ!? But this applies to all be- 
lievers. Christ therefore, and Christ only, is he who by his power 
could erush and destroy the head of the infernal serpent, and rescue 
and deliver us out of his jaws. Indeed it is wonderful that this first 
promise of our redemption, upon which the whole safety of the 
human race depends, should not have been more diligently cared 
for by these men. If they had been as solicitous as they ought for 
the salvation of men, they would never have permitted its founda- 
tion to have been so perilously and impiously shaken. Augustine 
indeed, De Gen. ad Liter. Lib. rr. e. 36%, reads the whole passage 
corruptly, Zpsa tibi servabit caput: but Cyprian reads Zpse in 
his Second Book to Quirinus?; and before him Irenzeus, Lib. m1. 


[! Salmeron however determines, * Christum Matrem suam prope crucem 
vocasse, ut ipsa Mater Filium suum in sacrificium Patri eterno pro toto 
mundo offerret, ut Abraham filium suum Isaac ex obedientia offerre voluit.”— 
Opp. T. x. Tract. 41. p. 933. cited by Glass. Philol. S. p. 693. (Amstel. 1694.)] 

[2 So also Enarr. in Ps. ciii. T. Iv. pp. 1668—9, and elsewhere. The 
reading servabit is from the Septuagint rgpjce. See Gesenius in voc. tj3t.] 

[? Testim. adv. Judzos, rr. 9. p. 37. Hoc semen preedixerat Deus de 
muliere procedere, quod calcaret eaput Diaboli....ipse tuum observabit 
caput.] 


x QUESTION THE SECOND. 165 


c. 774; and Leo the pope of Rome interprets this place of the Seed 
of the woman, Serm. 2 De Nativitate Domini». And that this is 
the true reading, Jerome teaches us in his Questions upon Genesis: 
so that either the Vulgate edition is not Jerome's, or Jerome hath 
contradicted himself. Chrysostom sometimes seems to read Zpsa; 
but Philip Montanus hath shewn that this is the fault of his 
translator. Canus, Lib. rm. e. 15, acknowledges that there is a 
manifest error in this place. To the same effect Andradius, Defens. 
Lib. 1v., and Cajetan®, upon the three Chapters of Genesis, writes 
plainly that this is not spoken of the woman, but of the Seed of the 
woman. Isidore Clarius hath restored Z7psum in his Bible; and 
John Benedictus, in his Scholia upon this place, says that we should 
not read Jpsa but Jpsum, so as to understand it of the Seed. 
Wherefore to defend this reading of the Vulgate edition is to excuse 
a manifest error, and to contradict a plain truth. 

The second place is Gen. vi., which is read thus in the Vulgate 
edition: Cuncta cogitatio cordis est intenta ad malum, The 
Hebrew would require: ZZgmentum cordis ejus tantummodo 
malum omni die’. Bellarmine says, in the first place, that the sense 
is the same. 

I answer. Although this were true, it would not amount to a 
just defence. For it behoves a translator of scripture not merely 
to take care that he do not corrupt the meaning, but also, as far 
as it is at all possible, not to depart a hand’s breadth from the 
words; since many things may lie under cover in the words of the 
Holy Spirit, which are not immediately perceived, and yet contain 
important instruction. But in this place the sense 7s changed. 
For it is one thing to be intent on evil, and another to be evil, and 
only evil. For itis a lighter thing to be propense towards evil, than 
to be already actually evil. Besides the Vulgar translator says that 
“every thought of man's heart is intent on evil:” as if the Holy 
Spirit only blamed the thoughts; whereas he condemns both the 
thoughts and the principle and source of all the thoughts. The 
faults of this passage, then, are these. First, there is nothing in 
the Hebrew to answer to the word Z/ntenta. Secondly, “every 


[4 Lib. mr. e. 38. p. 309, a. (ed. Fevard. Par. 1675) Lib. 1v. c. 78. p. 
425,c. The reference in the text is a mistake, since there are not seventy- 
seven chapters in the third book in any edition that Whitaker could have used.] 

[5 Denuntians serpenti futurum semen mulieris, quod noxii capitis elatio- 
nem sua virtute contereret. pp. 13, 14. Opp. Lugd. 1623.) 

[$ Opp. Lugd. 1639. T. r. p. 29.] 


[ Dhm-52 ya pi iB maw ow"-523. Gen. vi. 5] 


166 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


thought of the heart” is substituted for the whole figment of the 
thoughts of man’s heart. Thirdly, the particle only is omitted, 
which hath the greatest possible weight in the expression. 

Bellarmine’s second observation is, that it does not follow from 
this that, as the Lutherans suppose, all the works of men are evi ; 
since this is a hyperbole, similar to that which is said in the same 
chapter, “All flesh had corrupted its way,” while yet Noah is called 
in the very same place a righteous man and a perfect. 

I answer. In the first place, the Lutherans do not say that 
all man’s works are evil, but only the works of men not yet rege- 
nerate. Now, that these latter are all evil, is most manifestly plain 
from other testimonies of scripture, and specially from this place. 
Secondly, there is no hyperbole in this passage; for in reality the 
desires of such men are nothing but evil. This even Andradius 
acknowledges, Orthodox. Explic. Lib. rr. and Defens. Lib. v. For 
he says that that is evil, which the human heart itself begins the 
effort to frame and form." If the first movements of the heart be 
So vicious and impure, what remains at all sound in the human 
breast? For we do not speak of the substance of the heart, but of 
the qualities. Thirdly, there is nothing whatever hyperbolical in 
the assertion, that all flesh had corrupted its way. Noah was, indeed, 
a just man and a perfect; yet so as that his justice was not innate 
in his nature, but received as a gift from God: for Noah was not 
entirely pure from all that corruption which had pervaded all flesh. 
See what hyperboles these men have found in scripture! Concerning 
Noah, Jerome writes thus in his Questions on Genesis: “It is empha- 
tically said, ‘in his generation,’ to shew us that he was righteous 
not according to the measure of absolute righteousness, but according 
to the righteousness of his generation!.” 

The third place is in Gen. ix., where they read thus: Qui 
Suderit sanguinem hominis, fundetur sanguis illius. Here the 
words *by man?” are omitted. Bellarmine says that this omission 
does not render the sense imperfect, since the sense is the same in 
the Hebrew and in the Latin: *He who shall slay man shall be - 
slain himself.” | | 

I answer. The sense is not so full in the Latin as in the 
Hebrew. For the clause “by man,” or, as others render it, “in 
man," is emphatie, as Cajetan in his Commentaries and others 
also inform us, and is variously explained by many expositors; all 


[! Ut ostenderet non juxta justitiam consummatam, sed juxta generationis 
su: justitiam, fuisse eum justum. — T. rrr. p. 316.] 


[| J2W’ 127 D7N2 DINT DT JDL. Gen. ix. 6.] 


X«1 QUESTION THE SECOND. 167 


which explanations are taken from us, if these words be removed 
from the text. It is false, therefore, that the sense is not im- 
paired by this omission. The truest explanation seems to be that 
given by those who think that the authority of the magistrate and 
the judge is sanctioned in these words, and that a murderer is not 
to be merely left to the divine vengeance, but searched out and 
punished by those to whom the sword hath been delivered by God. 
For it is not the same thing for one to say merely, * he who slays 
man shall be himself slain," as it is when one adds *by man." 
For the former might be understood only to mean that he should 
be slain by God ; but the latter implies that he is to be consigned to 
death by man. 

The fourth place is Gen. xiv. 18, where in the Hebrew neither 
is there any trace of the word “offering,” nor of a causative 
conjunction. 

Bellarmine objects, in the first place, that the Vulgate edition 
does not read obtulit, but protulit panem et vinum. 

I answer. Nevertheless in some copies we do find obtulit ; nor 
does Andradius deny it in the fourth book of his Defence. But 
most of the Latin copies do indeed now read proferens panem et 
vinum, not offerens. Which shews that our adversaries do the 
more grossly abuse this place, when they apply it to support the 
sacrifice of the mass. 

Secondly, he objects that the particle Ve is in Hebrew often 
taken for Chi, because?. 

I answer. This is not denied; nor was there any occasion to 
prove it by the citation of so many instances. However, it hath 
not that force in this passage. For Melchisedek brought forth the 
bread and wine, not to offer sacrifice or discharge any priestly 


[? The clause in question is | moy OND > NY m Dm? NOV, 


and the question seems to be whether his being priest of the Most High be 
mentioned in connexion with the bringing forth of the bread and wine, or 
with his blessing Abraham. If with the former, then the 3 may be causative. 
For when the sense of a clause in Hebrew is such as to leave the reader's 
mind searching for a reason of the thing stated in it, then the conjunctive 
particle is often used to carry on the train of thought thus implied rather 
than expressed :—i. e. it becomes causative. But there seems no reason here 
for any such connexion; because there was nothing for which the reader 
would naturally seek any reason, not to be found amongst the other circum- 
stances, in the act of Melchisedech bringing refreshment for Abraham and 
his followers: whereas the clause is perfectly fitted to introduce the circum- 
stance of the benediction.] 


168 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


function, but rather to do as became a king,—that is, refresh with 
provisions Abraham and his comrades in the battle. This answer 
you will not perhaps approve when given by me. Listen, therefore, 
to the reply of your own fellows. Cajetan speaks thus in his 
Commentary upon this place: “That which in the Vulgate edition 
is subjoined as the cause of the oblation (‘for he was priest of the 
most high God’) is not given in the Hebrew as a reason, but as a 
separate clause: ‘Also he was priest to the high God. It adds 
his priestly dignity, to his royal honour and bounty!” Thus 
Cajetan refers his production of the bread and wine to his royal 
bounty, his benediction of Abraham to his sacerdotal dignity, and 
that with perfect justice. So Andradius, Defens. Trid. Lib. tv.: 
* [ agree with those who say that Melchisedek refreshed with bread 
and wine the soldiers of Abraham, wearied and broken with the 
long battle?" You have, therefore, Andradius and Cajetan, and 
many more, differing from your notion, that the bread and wine 
were produced by Melchisedek to offer them as a sacrifice to God. 
As to the judgment of the fathers, there will be another place for 
answering that argument. 

Bellarmine objects thirdly, that in Ps. cix. it is said of Christ: 
“Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek !” 
Why is Christ a priest after the order of Melchizedek, unless 
because the one offered bread and wine, the other himself in the 
forms of bread and wine? 

I answer. The apostle plainly teaches us in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, chap. v. vii. how Christ is a priest after the order of Mel- 
chizedek ; so that there is no necessity for inventing this new 
analogy. But if Melchizedek was no otherwise a type of Christ 
but because he offered bread and wine, the apostle hath compared 
Christ with Melchizedek in vain, and said not one word to the 
purpose; for he hath made no mention of this sacrifice in the com- 
parison. If then it was by reason of this sacrifice alone that 
Christ was a priest after the order of Melchizedek, then the apostle, 
in drawing this comparison of Christ with Melchizedek, hath 
omitted that altogether which was the only thing worth mention- 


_[! Quod in vulgata editione subditur, ut causa oblationis (erat enim 
sacerdos Dei altissimi) in Hebreeo non habetur ut causa, sed separata clau- 
sula, *et ipse erat sacerdos El excelso. Adjungit siquidem regie dignitati 
et liberalitati dignitatem sacerdotalem. T. r. p. 66.] 

[2 Ego cum illis sentio, qui lassos Abrahz milites et diuturna pugna frac- 
tos Melchisedechum pane vinoque refecisse aiunt.] 


x.] | QUESTION THE SECOND. 169 


ing, and hath not proved with any sufficient care and pertinency 
the very thing which was to have been proved. What else is this, 
but to offer an open insult to the Holy Spirit? Which is, indeed, 
what these men do, when they say that Christ is a priest after the 
order of Melchizedek, upon no other grounds than because the one 
offered bread and wine, the other himself in the forms of bread 
and wine. But we shall have an occasion elsewhere of speaking of 
this whole matter. 

The fifth place is in the last chapter of Numbers, where the 
Vulgate copies exhibit the following reading: Omnes viri ducent 
uxores de tribu et cognatione sua, et cuncte femine de eadem 
tribu maritos accipient?. That this is an erroneous interpreta- 
tion, any one may readily understand in many ways, who shall 
compare it with the Hebrew text. In these words it is absolutely 
forbidden that any man should take a wife, or any woman marry a 
husband, out of their own tribes respectively. But many examples 
occur in scripture of marriages contracted between persons of dif- 
ferent tribes. It was not, therefore, the meaning of the law, that 
every man and woman should marry only into their own tribes; 
but the command extended -only to heritors, to prevent the posses- 
sions and estates of the several tribes from being confounded, or 
passing into other tribes. Whatever, then, Bellarmine may say to 
excuse the fault of this version, whoever will give the place even 
the slightest inspection, will immediately detect its erroneousness. 
And whereas Bellarmine affirms that the words run just the same 
way in the Hebrew as in the Latin, (which I marvel how he could 
assert so confidently and yet so falsely,) I will confute him with no 
other testimony than that of Cajetan. This is Cajetan’s remark 
upon the place: **This clause is not contained in the Hebrew *." 
That cardinal denies that to be contained in the Hebrew, which 
Bellarmine affirms to be contained in it: but the cardinal is Bel- 
larmine's superior both in authority and in truth. Afterwards the 
same cardinal presently subjoins: *See how many and how im- 
portant additions to the law the translator hath passed over in 
silence. The law is not delivered concerning every daughter, but 
of a daughter that is an heiress?," &c. Thus there are many 
faults of the Vulgate edition in this place, if we believe Cajetan ; 


[3 Numbers xxxvi. 7, 8.] 

[* Non habetur hee clausula in textu Hebraico. T. r. p. 428.] 

[5 Vide quot et quales additiones legis siluit interpres. Non traditur lex 
de qualibet filia, sed de filia heerede. ] 


170 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


and yet Bellarmine could see none, lest perchance he should be 
forced to acknowledge some error in the Vulgate edition, which, no 
doubt, would be a most deplorable catastrophe ! 

The sixth place is Ezra ix. 8, where the reading is pax illius, 
whereas we should read pawillus!'. Here Bellarmine acknowledges 
an error of the transcribers; for the Hebrew word denotes a 
stake, so that there is no room to doubt that this is the true read- 
ing. As to Bellarmine’s assertion that many Latin copies exhibit 
paxillus, I think it by no means probable, since the Louvain cor- 
rectors of the Bible retain the old and wrong reading in the text; 
which surely they would not have done, if they had felt that the 
authority of copies would have supported them in amending the 
passage. Indeed, we may well ask why they did not amend it? 
Is the matter doubtful or obscure? Bellarmine confesses that to 
be the true reading which they have excluded from the text, that 
false which they retain in the text. Yet the divines of Louvain, 
who profess themselves to be desirous of correcting the errors of 
the Vulgate edition, have marked indeed, but not removed, this 
error, certain and shameful as it is. And with other such mistakes 
of the transcribers, known, manifest and acknowledged, does that 
edition abound. Should we receive that for authentic scripture, 
which its very correctors have left so full of blemishes ? 

The seventh place is Job v. 1: Voca si quis est qui tibi re- 
spondeat, et ad aliquem sanctorum convertere. Bellarmine says 
that Chemnitz pretends that this place was corrupted to support 
the invocation of saints; and thereupon, with sufficient impudence, 
pronounces him drunk. But Chemnitz blames not the version of 
the passage, but the reasoning of the papists from that version; 
that the saints are to be invoked, because we are bidden to betake 
ourselves to some of the saints: whereas those are called saints 
in scripture, who cultivate holiness during their lives. And thus 
these men often abuse the Latin version to the support of their 
doctrines in a way that can hardly be called sober argumentation. 

The eighth place is Prov. xvi. 11, where they read lapides 
seculi?, instead of lapides sacculi; which passage we have men- 
tioned before. And Bellarmine confesses that the reading which 


[! The word in the Hebrew is TJ), upon which Gesenius observes, * pan- 
gere paxillum. Hebreeis (et Arabicus, v. vit. Tom. 1. p. 134, 228. ed. Mauger) 
imago est sedis firmee et stabilis Jer. xxii. 23, de qua Ww» dicitur, Esr. ix. 8.”] 


(PDD uwNR] 


x. QUESTION THE SECOND. 171 


exhibits sacculi is the true one, but the Vulgate, even in its latest 
Louvain edition, false, which exhibits secu/. 

The ninth place is Eccles. ix. 2: Nescit homo, utrum odio vel 
amore dignus-sit, sed omnia in futurum servantur incerta?. Bel- 
larmine says that the Vulgate interpreter hath rendered the passage 
excellently well, not counting, indeed, the Hebrew words, but 
weighing them and expressing their sense. 

I answer. The Vulgate interpreter in this place hath neither 
counted the words, nor weighed them, nor expressed the sense, but 
rendered them most falsely ; which will readily appear evident, if 
the Hebrew words be compared with this translation. For those 
interpreters who have translated the scriptures from the Hebrew, 
with the greatest care and fidelity, have perceived that these words 
required a totally different interpretation. Vatablus hath translated 
the passage thus: ** And that man is ignorant alike of love and 
hatred, but to him (God) all things are set opent" Pagninus 
thus: * Both love and hatred man knows not; all which are 
before them5." — Cajetan thus: ** Both love and hatred man knows 
not; all in their face9." Jerome himself translated this passage far 
otherwise, as appears from that other interpretation of this book, 
which is extant amongst his works, where we read: Et quidem 
caritatem, et quidem odium non est cognoscens homo: omnia in 
facie eorum. This differs, both in words and in sense, from yours, 
which yet ye call Jerome's. As to the sense, it is not what you 
suppose; that all things here are doubtful and uncertain, so that 
no man, while he remains in this life, knows whether he enjoys the 
love of God or labours under his hatred. This is an utterly false 
assertion, and contrary to the whole teaching of the scriptures: 
for the seriptures every where teach, that those who believe are 
certain of the favour of God and their own salvation ; which most 
true and sacred doctrine should not be rejected for the sake of the 
error of your version. We shall speak of the matter itself else- 
where: for the present, let cardinal Cajetan teach Bellarmine that 
this is not the sense of the place in hand. ‘ Before us are those 
things which are carried on about us, whether prosperous or adverse: 


[| orv3e? OS DINT y]? DM ONIwD] DOUNCDl] 

[4 Quodque pariter amorem et oie ignorat homo, ipsi autem (Deo) 
sunt omnia proposita.] 

[^ Etiam amorem, etiam odium nescit homo: que omnia ante eos sunt.] 

[6 Etiam amorem etiam odium non sciens homo: omnia enim in facie 
eorum. | 


172 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


at the same time we know not the cause of adversity or pros- 
perity, whether it be the love or hatred of God, that is, whether 
God out of his love to a man governs him by adverse circum- 
stances, and in like manner, out of his hatred to a man governs 
him by adversity; and the same may be said of prosperity !." 
Mercer, a man exquisitely skilled in the Hebrew tongue and scrip- 
ture, interprets and explains the passage to the like effect; nor 
does he think that your own translator meant any thing more than 
this, that it cannot be judged and certainly determined by external 
circumstances, whether any one is loved by God or not, since all 
happen alike to all, to the just and the impious, the pure and the 
impure, the good and the unrighteous, those who sacrifice and 
those who sacrifice not, those who swear and those who reverence 
an oath, as it follows in the succeeding sentences. 

The tenth place is Ecclus. v. 5: De propitiato peccato noli 
esse sine metu. The place is badly translated, since the Greek is 
mept e&iNacuov uy ado[Jos *ylvov. Which words warn men not to 
sin presumptuously through confidence of obtaining remission of 
their sius: for it follows, “nor add sin to sin." For many heap 
sin upon sin, because they promise themselves certain remission ; 
whom Ecclesiasticus deters by this most solemn admonition. 
As to Bellarmine's pretence, that we say that a man should be 
secure of obtaining pardon, and therefore that our opinion is con- 
futed by these words, he seems to understand our doctrine but 
badly. For we do not approve security in any man, as he slan- 
derously lays to our charge. 

The eleventh place is Ecclus. xvi. 15: Misericordia faciet 
locum unicuique secundum meritum operum suorum. Here in a 
few words are many errors. For thus stands the Greek text: 
ach eA enu og vy Tolncov TOTOV' EKAaTTOS "yap kata Ta epya 
avro) evpnoer* “ Make way for every work of mercy: for every 
man shall find according to his works.” The words are not the 
same, and the sense different. That word merit, whence did the 
Vulgate translator get it? Certainly he did not find it in the 
Greek. For as to Bellarmine’s pretence that xard tprya is the 
same as “according to the merit of one’s works,” which he says 


[! Coram nobis sunt ea que circa nos geruntur, sive prospera, sive ad- 
versa; et cum hoec nescimus causam adversitatis vel prosperitatis, an sit 
odium vel amor Dei, hoc est, an Deus tanquam amans aliquem gubernet 
eum per adversa: et similiter an tanquam odio habens aliquem gubernet eum 
per adversa: idemque dicito de prosperis. p. 165. sine loco. 1545. ] 


x] QUESTION THE SECOND. 173 


that every one knows who is ever so slightly skilled in the Greek 
language; I would fain know from him who is so skilful in the 
Greek tongue, in what Lexicon or other book he ever found that 
kata éprya means any thing else but “according to works?” And if 
Bellarmine can make no distinction between works and the merit of 
works, he hath no reason to attribute to himself any great skill and 
exper tness in either the Greek language or theology. ‘To works there 
is a reward promised in scripture ; to the merits of works none, but 
that of death. 

The twelfth place is Joel n. 18: Prestabilis super ma- 
litia?. What is this? Let us hear Bellarmine's explanation: 
* Prestabilis super malitia," saith he, *means excelling in compas- 
sion.” As if prestabilis super were all one with excelling, or 
malitia the same thing as compassion. Or otherwise: ** Prestabilis 
super malitia 1s as much as to say, so good as not to be overcome 
of evil.” But that is not the meaning of the prophet. The pro- 
phet extols the clemency and goodness of God, and says that it is 
so great that God repents him of the evil with which he had 
determined to afflict the people. This may easily be understood. 
The other is not only obseure, but absolutely barbarous. 

The thirteenth place is Micah v. 2, which Osiander says is 
wrongly rendered by the old translator. For it should not be 
translated, parvula es in millibus Judah?, but, “it is too slight a 
thing that thou shouldst be in the thousands of Judah." I have 
no business to answer in behalf of Osiander. His correction seems 
to deserve some regard, since Matthew in reciting this place, chap. 
ii. 6, does not read “art little," but ovdauws €AaxtoTn ei, “art by 
no means least:;" and the place might undoubtedly be rendered 
better than it is rendered by the Vulgate interpreter. 

Thus then hath Bellarmine excused some faults of the old 
Latin version; with what skill, learning, or truth, let others judge. 
I believe that no one who is not under an immoderate influence of 
party spirit will say that the Vulgate translation is nobly vindi- 
cated by Bellarmine. If there were no other error in that version, 
yet it might be sufficiently understood and perceived by those now 
adduced, that it is by no means so pure and perfect as to merit to 
be esteemed the authentic scripture of God. But besides these there 
are others also, and those so many that they cannot be detailed 


p nywroy om.) 


(3 TPA ^EoN1 DW Wye. Osiand. Bibl P.gr p. 482. Tubing. 
1597. He transl: ates, Parum est ut sis in millibus Judz.] 


174 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY, [ CH. 


and enumerated. And lest any one should think that I say this 
rashly, I will exhibit yet more clearly by fresh instances the in- 
finite perversity of that version. 

I shall commence with Genesis, wherein at the 30th verse 
of the first chapter these words, “all green herbs,” are wanting 
in your Vulgate edition. Nor ought they to be deemed super- 
fluous. The Lord in this place plainly distinguishes the food of 
man from that of cattle: to man God gave the herbs and trees 
which yield fruit; to the beasts all green herbs for food. The 
Vulgate translator, omitting these words, says that the same pro- 
vision is given by God to the brutes and to man. 

Gen. ii. 8, the Vulgate hath, Plantaverat Deus Paradisum 
voluptatis a principio, instead of, * God had planted a garden in 
Eden eastward.” For eden indicates the proper name of a place, 
as appears from Gen. iv. 16, where we read that Cain settled on 
the east side of this place: and God had not planted that garden 
* from the beginning," since it was only on the third day that he 
created the herbs and fruitful trees, as is manifest from chap. i. 12. 
More correct is the rendering of the Seventy, kara avaroAas: 
and so Vatablus, Pagninus, and Tremellius, ab oriente. 

Gen. ii. 23, Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, instead of?, “ for 
this turn bone of my bone;" and Cajetan tells us that there is in 
these words an emphasis usual with the Hebrews. 

Gen. iii. 6, Aspectuque delectabile, instead of, “desirable to 
make one wise." Verse 8, in medio ligni Paradisi, for, “amongst 
the trees of Paradise.” Verse 17, maledicta terra in opere tuo®, 
for, ‘cursed be the earth on thine account.” Gen. iv. 13, Major 
est iniquitas mea quam ut veniam merear. In the Hebrew there 
is not even the shadow of any word denoting merit. It should be 
rendered *than I can bear," or *sustain*;" or, “ than that I should 
obtain forgiveness," as the Septuagint translates it, cov apeOjvai 
uc. At verse 15, Nequaquam ita fiet, is redundant. For the 
Lord does not promise Cain that no one should slay him. Verse 16, 
Profugus in terra, for, “in the land of Nod," or Naid as the 
Septuagint read it, or “the land of wandering." Verse 26, Iste. 


[! The word is D'1/22, which is ambiguous: cf. Ps. lxxiv. 12; Ixxvii. 6.] 
[? DOYS DNI. I cannot see the fault of the Vulgate here.] 


[3 The translator mistook the word J) 1y2, reading it witha Daleth 4 
instead of a Resh *, and so making an unauthorised derivative from '13y 
equivalent to TTAY.] 


[* NIW3D.] 


x.] ! QUESTION THE SECOND. 175 


copit invocare, for, “then began men5;" for it is not the person 
but the time which Moses particularises. Gen. v. 22, those words, 
et vixit Enoch, are superfluous. 

Gen. vi. 3, Non permanebit Spiritus meus in homine in 
eternum, instead of, * My Spirit shall not strive?" Verse 6, et 
precavens in futurum, should be struck out. 

Gen. viii. 4, Vicestmo septimo die mensis, instead of, “ upon 
the seventeenth day of the month;" where the Vulgate edition 
follows not the Hebrew original but the seventy interpreters: 
which is also the case verse 7, where it translates, qué egrediebatur 
et non revertebatur. For the raven went and returned into the 
ark, as is plain from the Hebrew, until the waters dried up. 
Hence Eugubinus, though a papist, deservedly blames in his 
Scholia the Vulgate version of this verse. 

Gen. xi. 12. Arphaxad is said in the Vulgate edition to have 
lived, after he had begotten Saleth, three hundred and three years. 
But the Hebrew text proves him to have lived four hundred and 
three years. 

Gen. xii. 2, Dives valde in possessione! auri et argenti, 
instead of, * very rich in flocks, in silver, and in gold.” And verse 
11, Divisique sunt alterutrum a fratre suo, which is absolutely 
unintelligible. The Hebrew text is plain, that they separated the 
one from the other. 

Gen. xiv. 8. That is called vallis sylvestris, which should 
have been called Siddim, or a plain. For, unless it be a proper 
name, it denotes arable, and not woody ground’, Gen. xvii. 16, 
Orientur ex eo, for, ‘from her." Gen. xix. 18, Queso, Domine 
mt, for, ** No, I pray thee, my Lord." 

Gen. xxi, 9. The expression of the Vulgate is too gentle, 
when it says that Ishmael played with? (lusisse) Isaac. He rather 


[5 nm DU Nap om TN. The verb, being in the passive, must 
be taken impersonally.] 


[6 Wr Nb. Gesenius translates, “ Non in perpetuum Spiritus meus in 
hominibus humiliabitur;" making the radical idea of 1 to be, like that of 
the Arabic " depression; in which case it is cognate with the Anglo-Saxon 
down. | 

[7 Mp. However, the word does denote possession in general, as well 
as the particular possession of cattle.] 

[SOWA POY from MW to level.] 

[? PIS. 


176 : 
(0 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


played upon Isaac, than with him. And that it should be so 
rendered, appears from the apostle to the Galatians, iv. 29, who 
interprets this version to mean nothing slighter than a hostile 
persecution. But now, if Ishmael had done nothing more than 
play with his brother, neither would Sarah have taken it so un- 
kindly, nor would the apostle on that account have charged 
Ishmael with so great a crime. 

Gen. xxiv. 22, we have duo sicli, instead of, “the half of 
a shekel.” And at verse 32, what is the meaning of distravit 
camelos ? He should have said that he loosed, or took their 
burdens off the camels; which, as I take it, is not the sense 
of distravit. In this verse too water is said to have been 
brought to wash the camels’ feet, which, however, was really 
prepared for washing the feet, not of the camels, but of the 
servant. And at verse 6, the Vulgate hath, qui festinus reverte- 
batur ad Dominum suum, instead of, “and that servant took 
Rebecca, and departed." In the last verse of Gen. xxviii, Esau is 
said in the Vulgate to have “ counted it a slight thing that he had 
sold his birthright.” But the Hebrew text says that he despised 
the birthright itself. Tor Esau might have thought slightly of 
the sale of the birthright, and yet might have prized highly the 
birthright itself. So that the Vulgate translator hath by no means 
come up to the sense of the words or the enormity of the sin 
intended. Gen. xxvii. 5, ut jussionem patris impleret, instead of, 
* to take the prey which he should bring." At verse 33, those 
words, ultra quam credi potest admirans, are redundant. —Like- 
wise Gen. xxxi. 32, these, quod autem furti me arguis. 

Gen. xxxiv. 29, the clause, ** and they plundered finally what- 
soever was in any house," is omitted, while quibus perpetratis 
audacter is added superfluously. Gen. xxxvi. 24, the Vulgate 
interpreter says that Anan found ** warm waters" in the desert; 
which version all who know any thing of Hebrew know to be 
false}; for Anan found not hot springs, of which there is no 
mention made in this place, but mules. This place, therefore, the 
Septuagint translated ill?, and the Vulgate interpreter in following 
them hath erred from the Hebrew verity. 


[! Gesenius (Lex. voc. DY2*) observes, “Quod Hieronymus scribit in 
Queest. ad l. e., *nonnulli putant aquas calidas juata Punice lingue viciniam, 
quie Hebrse contermina est, hoe vocabulo significari non contemnendum 
hocgs Conjectura sat infelici ex contextu facta mulos intelligunt nonnulli 
Hebrezi et Lutherus."] 

[? This seems to be an oversight of Whitaker’s: for the Septuagint have 


x.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 177 


Gen. xxxvii. 2. Joseph is said in the Vulgate to have been 
sixteen years of age, when he fed his father’s sheep along with 
his brothers. But in the Hebrew text it is seventeen. In the 
same verse the Vulgate interpreter says that Joseph accused his 
brethren to his father with a very grievous accusation, as if some 
fixed and foul crime were intended; but the Hebrew text runs 
thus: * And Joseph reported the ill report of them to their 
father,"—31. e. he related their ill behaviour to their father, and 
informed him of all their faults. 

Gen. xxxvii. 5, the Vulgate translator reads: Quo nato, 
parere ultra cessavit ; which is foreign from the meaning of the 
Hebrew text. It ought to have been rendered, “ And she was in 
Chezib when she bore him?;" for Chezib is the name of a city of 
the Philistines. And, verse 12, Hirah is called opilio gregis by 
the Vulgate interpreter, as by the Septuagint o zotuxgv avrov. 
But Jerome blames this version, and teaches us that the Hebrew 
word denotes not a shepherd, but a friend*: so that this Hirah, 
who went to the town with Judah, was his friend, and not his 
shepherd. At verse 23, the old version hath, Certi mendacii 
arguere nos non potest. But the true sense of the Hebrew is, 
* that we be not despised 5." 

Gen. xxxix. 6, these words, * Wherefore he left all his goods 
in the hand of Joseph," are omitted. At verse 10, something is 
wanted to make the sense complete: for thus we read in the 
Vulgate, Hujusmodi verbis per singulos dies. It should have been 
filled up from the Hebrew original, * with such words every day 
did she address Joseph.” But the words which follow are super- 
fluous, Et mulier molesta erat adolescenti. 

Gen. xl. 5, this whole clause is left out, * The butler and the 
baker of the king of Egypt who were bound in the tower of the 
prison.” At verse 16 we have tria canistra farina, for ** three 
white (or osier) baskets®.” But here the Vulgate interpreter 
followed the Septuagint, not the Hebrew original itself. 


not translated it at all, but retained the original word, Os eopev róv “Iapely ev 
T épriuo. ] 

BIN’ AAA 223 MN.) 

[* wy". "The difference is in the points; MP) a friend, ny? d 
shepherd.] 

[| »32 mmm 15 

[en bp, Gesenius translates 0n panis albus. LXX. kava xov- 
Opvróv. I think the Vulgate is not here to be blamed.] 


[WHITAKER. | i 


178 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


Gen. xli. 45, the Vulgate interpreter, in explaining the name 
whieh Pharaoh gave to Joseph, hath followed conjecture. rather 
than any certain reason. For he first says that those words are 
Egyptian; and then he explains them to mean the Saviour of the 
world!: for thus we read in the text of the Vulgate edition, 
Et vocabit eum lingua ZEgyptiaca Salvatorem mundi. The 
Septuagint have set down these two words without any explanation ; 
and the Hebrews doubt whether they are Egyptian or Chaldee. 
Josephus interprets them, “the discoverer of secrets?;” and with 
him agree the later Jews and the Chaldee Paraphrast. It may 
seem strange whence Jerome learnt that these were Egyptian 
terms, and that they denoted * the Saviour of the world.” 

Gen. xlix. 10, Jacob says of Judah, “binding the foal of his 
ass to the vine.” But the Vulgate translator hath rendered those 
words thus; Ligans ad vitem, O fili mi, asinam suam. And, 
at verse 22, Joseph is compared to a fruitful branch beside a well ; 
which words the Vulgate translates thus, accrescens et decorus 
aspectus?. At verse 24, Jacob says of Joseph, “and the arms of 
his hands were strengthened ;" which, in your edition, is turned to 
a quite contrary sense, dissoluta sunt vincula brachiorum et 
manuum ejus. In this place the translator followed the version of 
the Septuagint, and not the Hebrew text. 

At the end of that chapter, after the 32nd verse, this whole 
clause is omitted : ** Now that piece of ground was bought, and also 
the cave which is therein, from the sons of Heth.” Thus that 
chapter is, in the Vulgate edition, too short by one entire verse. 

Hitherto we have run over a single book ; in which review we 
have not been at all so curious or malicious as to let nothing which 


[! roy D3x. Gesenius, after ee and Jablonski, thinks the 


Vulgate interpretation right, ome the word from the Egyptian article 
p—sot—Saviour, and phenec aióv. This explanation regards the form given 
by the LXX. VYov@oupavnxy as correct; for the above words, when com- 
pounded, would in Coptic be Psotmphenec: the interposed being sounded 
om in the dialect of upper Egypt. See Scholtz, Expos. Voc. Copt. in Repert. 
Litt. Bibl. et Orient. T. xri. p. 19.] 

[2 Snpaiver yap TO Ovoua kpvmróv eoperyv. Joseph. Antiq. L. rr. c. vi. 1.] 


[3 P "gy. The Vulgate took PY in the sense of mien. The LXX. 


give a different turn, but still understand J'Y in the sense of an eye, not a well. 
Indeed we have two different versions in the present text of the LXX. 
Mov (5Àor)s (who has his eye on me), and IIpós pe dváorpevrov (turn back 
thine eye on me.)] 


x.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 179 


might justly deserve blame escape our hands. Many things I have 
knowingly and deliberately passed over, which nevertheless ought 
certainly to be accounted errors, because repugnant to the truth of 
the originals. . 

Were I to examine in the same way the remaining books of 
the old Testament, I should find an abundant crop of errors, and 
fill many pages with the enumeration of them. For your version 
is not a whit more exact in the other books than we have seen it 
to be in this; whence we may easily form an estimate of the gross- 
ness of its faults throughout. Indeed, since many have translated 
the scriptures from the original into various languages, and correct- 
ed in their versions the errors of this Vulgate edition, whoever 
would compile a separate book, diligently and accurately executed, 
upon the errors of this edition, would, in my opinion, undertake 
and perform:a work of very great utility. — For from such a work 
all would reap the benefit of seeing and understanding the great 
difference there is between the pure springs of the Hebrew verity, 
and the muddy and turbid streams of this version which they call 
the Vulgate. Were I to enter on the remaining books, I should 
engage in a task not at all required by the plan of my under- 
taking, and be drawn into a digression which would interrupt the 
course of our disputation. I have, I hope, sufficiently proved to 
you that this Latin edition is full of many errors and mistakes, 
such as our adversaries have never hitherto found even a single 
instance of in the originals. This it is not we alone that affirm: 
even some leaders of the popish sect maintain the same thing. No 
reason then can be adduced, why the Hebrew edition in the old 
Testament, and the Greek in the new, should not command a great 
and deserved preference to the Latin Vulgate. I shall now return 
to Bellarmine, and sift the remainder of his defence. 





CHAPTER XI. 


OF THE LATIN EDITION OF THE PSALMS AND ITS MANIFOLD 
CORRUPTIONS. 


BELLARMINE next inveighs against Calvin, and pleads in defence 
of the Latin edition of the Psalms, which Calvin, in his Antidote to 
the council of Trent, had most truly declared, and proved by some 

12—2 


180 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


instances, to be corrupt and vicious. And who is there, but the 
patron of a desperate cause, who can maintain the claims of this 
edition to the character of an authentie and uncorrupted document ? 
For it is absolutely certain that it is rendered into Latin, not from 
the Hebrew, but from the Greek; not by Jerome, but by some 
unknown and uncertain author. Would it not be more conformable 
to reason for these men to make the Greek, from which that version 
is derived, authentic? since the latter is only the daughter, or 
image rather, of the former. Why do they, in the case of the 
other books, receive what they think to be the Hieronymian 
version, and yet reject it here? Jerome expended as much labour 
upon translating the Book of Psalms into Latin as upon the other 
books; and that Latin edition, which was in most general use 
before Jerome, was no less faulty in the Psalms than in the other 
parts: but on account of the constant and customary use of the 
Psalms, which had everywhere propagated that old Latin version 
in the churches, and made it familiar to men’s ears, the Hierony mian 
Latin translation was not publiely received. Is this, then, to be 
held superior to Jerome's version in the Psalms? By no means. 
For it was not retained because it was better, but because it was 
more common, and could not easily be changed. Upon the same 
grounds, if use had confirmed that old version in the case of the 
other books also, it would not be now the Hieronymian, but it, 
however corrupted, that would, in spite of all its faults, be esteemed 
authentic. For thus the case stands with respect to the Psalms. 
The Latin edition is ratified as authentic. Why? We have the 
Hebrew and the Greek: whereof the Hebrew proceeds directly 
from the Prophets, David, Moses, Asaph, Solomon, and others who 
wrote the Psalms; and the Greek was made, as most people sup- 
pose, by the seventy Interpreters. This latter, though it must not 
absolutely be despised, hath yet most foully corrupted in many 
places the pure fountains of the Hebrew verity. Now the Latin is 
still more corrupt than this, as being still farther removed from the 
fountain head, and derived from the stream and not from the | 
spring. Yet it is not the Hebrew, nor the Greek, but this Latin 
edition, such as I have described it, that the Tridentine fathers 
have made the authentic scripture of the Psalms. And although all 
can see the enormous impudence of this proceeding, yet their 
most reckless rashness and temerity will appear yet more plainly 
when some errors of this edition are set before your eyes. Since 
then Bellarmine hath endeavoured to excuse those which Calvin 


x1. | QUESTION THE SECOND. 181 


had remarked, let us see with what shew of success or probability 
he hath performed his task. 

The first place is Psalm ii. 12: Apprehendite disciplinam!. 
Bellarmine says that in the Hebrew it is, “kiss,” or “adore the 
Son;” but that the sense is excellently well expressed by appre- 
hendite disciplinam, since we can no otherwise acknowledge the 
Son to be the Messiah than by receiving his faith and doctrine. 
I answer, in the first place, that a translator of scripture hath 
no right, first to change the words, and then to plead this excuse, 
that the sense hath been rendered by him. For we are not 
to consider the sense which he renders, but what the inspired 
words require. Secondly, the sense is not the same. For 
who will say, that to apprehend discipline is the same thing as 
to kiss the Son? For it does not follow that, because we must 
needs embrace Christ's discipline, if we acknowledge him as Mes- 
siah and our King, therefore the sense of these two expressions is 
the same. In this way all propositions, which agreed with each 
other, might be made out absolutely identical. Thirdly, a most 
noble testimony to Christ, for the refutation of Christ’s enemies, is 
by this version wrested from us. For discipline may be under- 
stood in such a sense as to have nothing to do with Christ; but 
the command to kiss the Son commends to us both his divine 
nature and his royal sway. 

The second place is Psalm iv. 8: Usque quo gravi corde?? In 
the Hebrew it is, *how long my glory into shame?" Bellarmine 
says, first, that the Hebrew text is probably corrupt; secondly, 
that the sense 1s the same. 

I answer to the first plea: The Hebrew text is now precisely 
the same as it was in Jerome's time, as appears from his Psalter. 
The Septuagint read and translated the passage erroneously, and 
this interpreter followed them. The cavils and calumnies of Lin- 
danus upon this place are sufficiently refuted by his master, Isaac. 
Then as to the sense, who does not see that there is a great diversity, 
especially if we follow Bellarmine’s exposition? For he says, 
that God here complains concerning men. But that is a mistake: 


( Opi . LXX. dpagacbe maibeías. Jerome, Adorate pure. Ewald, 


however, (Poetischen Bücher. rrt. p. 66) prefers the LXX. and Vulgate. He 
translates * nehme Rath an."] 


[2 M929 “AD. The Vulgate follows the LXX. Bapekdphu:; they 
read, 122 22 "n32] 


182 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. Lor. 


the speech is not God’s, but David’s, complaining of the boldness 
and wickedness of his enemies. ‘“O sons of men, ye insolent 
foes of mine, who, buoyed up with arrogance and fury, despise all 
others, how long will ye treat my glory with ignominy?” But 
Bellarmine pretends that God speaks and complains of men for 
neglecting eternal things, and loving temporal; which kind of men 
are heavy of heart by reason of their own fault, yet the glory of 
God by reason of the divine goodness. Who now will not confess 
that Bellarmine is a notable interpreter of the Psalms? Does God 
then call those who are heavy of heart his glory? Does God 
eall those men his glory, who despise the things of heaven and 
pursue the things of earth? Who must not laugh at such an 
exposition? Genebrard, however, hath explained the meaning 
better, who by the glory of David understands God himself, to- 
wards whom these men were disrespectful. 

The third place is Psalm xxxi. 4: Conversus sum in erumna 
mea, dum configitur spina’. These ought to be translated, as 
Bellarmine himself translates them from the Hebrew: * My juice 
is without moisture, and my freshness is turned into the summer 
droughts.” These versions are sufficiently different. Yet Bellar- 
mine says that the Vulgate interpreter cannot be blamed in this 
place. . He alleges two pleas in defence of him. One is, that he 
translated not from the Hebrew, but from the Greek into Latin; 
the other, that there is an error of the transcribers in the 
Hebrew. To the first I answer, that the fact of his translating 
from the Greek, and not the Hebrew, makes more for the blame 
than for the excuse of that interpretation: for in proportion as 
the Greek yields to the Hebrew text in fidelity and authority, in 
the same proportion must the value be depreciated of a version 
made not from the Hebrew but from the Greek. Then, as to his 
suspicion that the Hebrew text hath been here corrupted by the 
scribes, it is an assertion which Genebrard hath not ventured to 
make, nor would any one but Bellarmine, unless he were extrava- 
gantly prejudiced against the Hebrew originals, think of saying 
it; nor indeed would Bellarmine himself, most probably, have 
raised such a suspicion, if he had been able to excuse this error in 
any other way. The Hebrew words afford a certain and easy 
sense. The Latin will scarcely bear any tolerable explanation. 
For what is the meaning of dum configitur spina? The ancients 


| [! yp ani . In the Hebrew, Ps, xxxii. 4.] 


xi.] QUESTION THE SECOND, 183 


expounded the thorn to denote sin: Bellarmine says that we should 
understand the thorn of calamity. Be it so. But what then will 
be meant by dum configitur spina? The Greek reading, though 
not deserving- much commendation, is yet intelligible, év 7@ éu- 
mayivat por axavOav—* while the thorn is driven into me.” I 
see what this means; but I wish that Bellarmine would give some 
interpretation, consistent with the laws of grammar, of the other, 
dum configitur spina. 

Bellarmine’s explanation of the former clause of this verse, 
Conversus sum in crumna, which he makes to mean, “I am 
turned to repentance in the time of trouble," is neither admitted by 
Jerome's version, nor approved by Genebrard, who observes that 
the word Haphac is scarce ever spoken of repentance?. 

The fourth place is in the same Psalm, verse 9: Zn chamo et 
freno maaillas eorum astringe, qui non approximant ad te. The 
place should have been rendered thus: “Their mouth must be 
held in with bit and bridle, lest they come nigh to thee?."  Bel- 
larmine says that Calvin here exhibits amazing impudence. Why? 
Because, says he, the Septuagint* and Saint Jerome, and all the 
fathers, always read this passage as it 1s read now. 

I answer, first, that the Seventy have varied in many places 
very widely from the Hebrew, and Jerome gives large testimony 
to the fact. Secondly, Jerome in this place abstained from changing 
the old version, not because he deemed it incapable of amendment, 
but because he thought it was tolerable as it stood. Thirdly, the 
fathers’ reading according to the present text is nothing to the 
purpose: they follow the version in common use, which from an 
indifferent Greek text was made a worse Latin. But further, in 
reply to Bellarmine’s assertion that the Hebrew words, even as 
they are now read, may very well bear this interpretation, I must 
say that it would have been better to have proved this, than 
merely to have said it. Certainly Pagninus, Vatablus, Montanus, 
and Tremellus were of a different opinion; and Genebrard owns 
that the sentence was indeed broken up by the Septuagint, but 


[? I can find no instance of such a use of J5i7.] 
[| The Hebrew is JN 230p a pba PY OWN, thus 


rendered by Ewald: Zaum und zügel müssen dessen Bachen Schliessen, der 
sich dir nicht freundlich naht, p. 35, ut supra.] 

[4 év xadwv@ kal kguà tas otaydvas aitav aya Tv ui) éyyióvrov mpós ac. 
Jerome: In camo et freno maxillas ejus constringis, ut non appropinquet ad 
te.] 


184 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cm. 


for the sake of making it more easy. In fact, however, they have 
made it more intricate and difficult by this plan of breaking it up. 
For the prophet warns us not to be devoid of reason and discretion, 
“like the horse and the mule, whose mouths must be held in with 
bit and bridle, lest they fall upon us.” The old translator hath set 
forth a totally different sense of the words, as if God had com- 
manded David to bind with bit and bridle the throats of all those 
who (in Genebrard's words) do not approach “thy nature, which is that 
of a man, reason and virtue.” Nothing could possibly be alleged 
more remote from the prophet's meaning than such an exposition. 

The fifth place is in Psalm xxxvii 8: Quoniam lumbi mei 
repleti sunt illusionibus!, Calvin asks, how we are to understand 
that his reins were filled with illusions? Bellarmine says that the 
Hebrew word denotes not only shame, but heat?. I answer, that 
this is indeed true; but how then does he interpret his loins being 
“filled with illusions?” — Forsooth, by putting the effect for the 
cause; since David speaks of the heat and titillation of lust, which 
produces illusions in the mind. Away with this. Nothing was 
farther from the Psalmist’s meaning. Genebrard hath made a much 
better attempt, who by these “illusions” understands diseases on 
account of which he was mocked and insulted by his enemies. For 
David’s meaning is, that his loins or reins were filled with a sore 
and sharp disorder. 

The sixth place is Psal. Ixvii. 7?: Qui inhabitare facit unius 
moris in domo. The place should be rendered thus: ** Who setteth 
the single, or solitary, persons in a family." Bellarmine says that 
the Hebrew words may very well receive several senses. I answer: 
The words will bear but one true sense, and that an easy and 
ready one. Amongst the praises of God, the prophet mentions this, 
that those who are by themselves, that is, the desolate and solitary, 
without kindred, friends or wealth, are so increased, enriched, and 
adorned by him, as now to have families, in which are contained 
both children and servants. Thus Pagninus renders the words, and 
Vatablus and Montanus, and, in the old times, Jerome. The He- 
brew word does not denote uovovpoovs (as the Seventy render it), 


[! In the Hebrew, xxxviii. 7.] 

[2 mp2. The Radical of rop, in the sense of heat, seems the same as 
appears in cal-eo, cal. or. ] 

(8 Heb. Ps. Ixviii. 6.] 

[* The Seventy seem unjustly blamed here. They used povórpomos, in 
the sense recognised by good authors, to express the notion of solitariness. 


XI. ] QUESTION THE SECOND. 185 


that is of one manner, but solitary or lone persons. So that all 
the common disquisitions upon this place concerning similitude of 
manners and the identity of tastes, however true in themselves, are 
foreign to the subject and impertinent to the matter in hand. 

The seventh place is in the next verse of the same Psalm: Qui 
habitant in sepulchris. Calvin contends that we should read, “in 
a dry place*." By this expression, says Bellarmine, the translator 
wished to declare the horrors of that desert from which God brought 
his people forth. 

I answer: This man imagines that the Latin version of the 
Psalms, in its present state, is nobly defended, and his duty as its 
champion sufficiently discharged, when he is able to assign any 
sense at all to the words, no matter what, provided it be not impious 
and heretical. As if nothing else were required of a translator of 
. scripture, but only to express some sense or other not absolutely 
absurd, however remote from the real meaning of the Holy Spirit. 
For what can be more foreign to the mind of David than this 
meaning which our opponent ascribes to these words? The pro- 
phet is not, as Bellarmine supposes him to be, speaking of that 
desert out of which God had brought his people, which might, for 
its horridness, be compared to the tombs; but is saying that those 
who prove rebellious are thrust by God into dry and thirsty regions. 
What hath this to do with the desert through which God led his 
people into the land of Canaan? But this is not all that Calvin 
finds fault with in the verse before us. For the words sound thus 
in the Hebrew: ** He bringeth forth those that are bound with 
chains, but the rebels dwell in a very dry place." The Latin 
interpreter translates them thus, falsely and foolishly: Qué educit 
vinctos in fortitudine, similiter eos qui exasperant, qui habitant 
in sepulchris. What could possibly be expressed with greater con- 
fusion? Yet Genebrard applies to this place some medicine in his 
scholium, to eure the disorder of the Latin version. The words, 
according to him, are to be thus explained; that the rebels, who 
dwell in the sepulchres, or the dry places, are brought forth and 
delivered from death and the devil, or from dangers and evils. 
Thus this man by his exposition changes a most gloomy punishment 


It is so used by Josephus, B. J. II. xxi. 1, where he speaks of John of Giscala, 
AgoTis yàp nv povórpomos, erecta kai guvodiay eüpe Tis TóAugs; and by Plutarch 
in Pelopid. c. 3., povdrpomov Biov ám dpxfs éAópevos. Compare Bochart. 
Hierozoic. P. I. Lib. m. c. 45. col. 491.] 

[5 nmn. LXX. év radois. ] 


186 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [oH. 


into a most joyous and delightful benefit. If this be interpreting 
scripture, it certainly will be easy enough to make scripture say 
any thing we please. 

The eighth place is in the same Psalm, verse 12, &c. Dominus 
dabit verbum  evangelizantibus virtute multa. Rex virtutum 
dilecti, dilecti, et speciei domus divide spolia. Sit dormiatis inter 
medios cleros, penne columbe deargentate, et posteriora dorsi ejus 
in pallore auri!. These are not the oracles of the Holy Spirit, but 
rather, as Calvin truly says of them, enigmas which CEdipus himself 
could never solve. It is not only difficult to elicit and educe any 
consistent meaning at all from these words, utterly incoherent as they 
are; but to torture them into any thing which approaches the mean- 
ing of the prophet exceeds all the powers of art. Yet, if you please, let 
us have the explanation of Bellarmine. Rex virtutum dilecti 
dilecti: that is, the King most mighty, and Father of Messiah his 
entirely beloved Son. Specie? domus divide spolia : that is, he 
wil give to the preachers to divide the spoils of nations, for the 
beauty of the house, that is, the adornment of the church: for 
that speciei is in the dative case, and is equivalent to ad speciem. 
Wondrous well! First let me ask him whence he gets those two 
words, “he will give," and “to the preachers,” which are not con- 
tained in this verse through the whole compass of its words? For 
the preceding verse is divided from it in the Hebrew and the Greek, 
and the version of Jerome; and those words can by no means be 
carried over into it. Next, it is absolutely intolerable to make 
speciei the same as ad speciem, so as that dividere spolia speciei 
domus shall mean, “to divide spoils to the beauty," that is, to 
the grace and adornment “of the house," which is the church. 
Who speaks Latin after this fashion ? 

Genebrard hath excogitated another interpretation, more tole- 
rable indeed, but still alien from the prophet’s meaning. He denies 
that Rex virtutum here means God, but supposes it to denote 
any very brave and powerful prince. The sense therefore will be 


[| In the Greek, 'O Oeós Kopuws Occ pipa Troie evayyedcCopevors Suvapes 
mzoAAjg. “O Baoreds tav Suvapewy Tod dyamnro), Tov dyamgro), Kal ópauóryTi 
rod oikov diehéoa oxida. They took NINA ayia) as one word, regarding 
the * as merely a vowel of composition, as it is in peo», and other 
proper names. pm they derived from "T^ dilexit, taking the termination 


}) for a diminutive; and gave to 703 a meaning of which its radical shews 
traces in the Hiphil voice, Exod. xv. 2.] 


x1.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 187 


this: The most powerful princes shall be the Beloved’s, that is, 
shall yield to the Beloved of God, or the Son of God: and speciet 
he makes not the dative, but the genitive, (although in spite of the 
authority of the Greek text which exhibits 77 wpaoryti,) and 
explains thus; “it is of the beauty of the house to divide the spoil," 
—that is, it pertains to the glory of the house of God to divide 
the spoils of conquered kings, that is, demons. Is not this now a 
neat interpretation? ‘The remainder is thus explained by Bel- 
larmine. Si dormiatis inter medios cleros : that is, if you, O 
preachers, remain between two lots, the heavenly and the earthly, 
that is, be not wholly engaged in action nor wholly in contem- 
plation, but in à mean between both, then shall the church be like 
a most beautiful dove, &c. But ought the preachers to be in the 
middle between action and contemplation? What else can this 
mean but to keep clear of either action or contemplation ; in other 
words, to be wholly useless? Dormire inter medios eleros, is, in 
an unexampled manner, translated, “to sleep between the two lots ;” 
and then these two lots are most absurdly understood of action and 
contemplation. But everything hath its proper counterpart?, and 
the exposition suits the version. Genebrard confesses that the wits 
of all expositors have been, as it were, crucified in seeking an ex- 
planation of this passage : undoubtedly it tortured Bellarmine. But 
how hath Genebrard himself taken away this cross? Dormire 
inter medios cleros is, if we believe Genebrard, to be in the most 
certain and imminent perils. Our translators generally explain the 
word, which the Latin version represents by cleros, to mean “the 
pots?." But Bellarmine says that it cannot possibly bear that sig- 
nifieation. The contrary, however, is the opinion of Genebrard, the 
king’s professor of Hebrew in the university of Paris, who tells us 
that the Hebrew term denotes cauldrons, tripods, or pots. 

You have now heard how perplexed, confused, and tortured are 


[? Whitaker’s words are, *Similes habent labra lactucas.” The proverb 
occurs in Jerome, and is thus explained by Erasmus: “ Usurpat, simulque 
interpretatur, hoc proverbium Divus Hieronymus, scribens ad Chromatium 
in hune modum: Seeundum illud quoque, de quo semel in vita Crassum 
ait risisse Lucilius; similem habent labra lactucam, asino carduos come- 
dente: videlicet ut perforatam navim debilis gubernator regat, et cceci czecos 
ducant in foveam, et talis sit rector quales illi qui reguntur." Adagia. p. 644. 
Hanov. 1617.] 


[3 D'EU, the meaning of which is much disputed. Gesenius renders 
it, *stabula, caule.” So Ewald, “So ofs ihr zwischen Hürden ruhet.”] 


188 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


all these explications. But the Hebrew text hath no similar diffi- 
culty in it; which Pagninus and Montanus translate thus: ** Kings 
of armies fled, they fled; and she that dwelt at home divided the 
spoil. If ye have lain in the midst of the pots, ye shall be as the 
plumage of a dove, which is covered with silver, and her wings 
with yellow gold." This text hath given the interpreters no such 
torture, as, according to Genebrard, hath, in the case of the Latin, 
set them on the rack. 

The ninth place is in the same Psalm at verse 17: Ut quid 
suspicamini montes coagulatos ? Calvin says that we should read, 
* Why do ye envy the fat mountains?" In regard of this place 
Bellarmine hath no other answer to give but this, that the Hebrew 
word! is found nowhere else but here; and therefore, since we 
must abide by the judgment of some interpreters, the Seventy 
should be preferred to all the rest. If this be so, how comes it 
that Jerome and Vatablus and Pagninus and Montanus, and all 
who have translated the Psalter from the Hebrew, have put a dif- 
ferent sense upon that word? If we must abide by the judgment 
of the Seventy, on account either of their own or the church's 
authority, they who have assigned another meaning to this word 
cannot be defended. But let us follow the seventy interpreters, 
and inquire into the meaning of the word. The words stand 
thus in the Greek Psalter, ta 74 vzoXau[Bavere opn TeTUpW- 
p€eva 5 Which the Latin translator renders thus; Ut quid sus- 
picamint montes coagulatos ? Why hath Bellarmine concealed 
from us the meaning of these words? What is it to suspect co- 
agulated mountains ? Bellarmine would do us a favour if he would 
inform us. 

The tenth place is in the same Psalm also, at verse 19, Etenim 
non credentes inhabitare Dominum Deum; which translation agrees 
neither with the Hebrew?, nor with the Greek. That it does not 
agree with the Hebrew, is no way surprising, since it is not derived 
from it. But, at least, it should not depart from the Greek, from 
whieh it hath been taken. Yet depart it does, and very widely. 
For the Greek edition reads the passage thus: kai yap aei£oUvTas 
tov katacknveca. Here there is a full stop; and then a new 
sentence begins, Kvpios o Oeos evAoryntos. If the Latin had no 


[! 2^2333 rendered by Jerome, excelsi; by Ewald, gipfeligen ; by Gesenius, 
cacumina; substantially to the same sense.] 


[2 OTN P Jaw OND 8] 


x1] QUESTION THE SECOND. 189 


other fault save that of its ambiguity and obscurity, it ought not to 
be defended. 

The eleventh is also in the same Psalm, verse 23: Convertam in 
profundum maris. The Hebrew words denote the very opposite : 
* [ will bring back from the depths of the sea’.” Here Bellarmine 
acknowledges a mistake, and says that some copies of the Vulgate 
have not in profundum, but in profundis ; and he explains conver- 
tere in profundis maris to mean, drawing out those who are in the 
depths of the sea. But if this reading and interpretation be the 
true, as Bellarmine confesses, why have not the Louvain critics 
preferred it to the other which is false? Although perhaps the 
grammarians will not concede to Bellarmine that to convert in the 
deep of the sea, is the same as to bring forth from the depths of 
the sea. 

The twelfth place isin the same Psalm, verse 28: [bi Benjamin 
adolescentulus in mentis excessu. Which translation Bellarmine 
defends warmly, and maintains that these words are to be under- 
stood of the apostle Paul, who was of the tribe of Benjamin; and 
who, in the transport of his mind, is related to have slept so 
soundly that he did not know whether he were in the body or out of 
the body. And because the Hebrew word, which the old interpreter 
hath rendered, In mentis excessu, signifies a prince or governor, he 
combines this interpretation with the former, because Paul was the 
chief ruler and spiritual prince of the church of the Gentiles. Thus 
there is nothing with which Bellarmine cannot bravely reconcile his 
interpretations. But who can believe that David is here speaking 
of Paul? or that the Hebrew word‘ is capable of the meaning 
which the old interpreter hath put upon it? Jerome gives a dif- 
ferent rendering, Continens eos: Aquila, “their commander : " 
Theodotion, * the teacher of them," as we learn from Theodoret 
in his Commentaries upon the Psalms. All the later translators too 
differ from the Vulgate, giving Lord, Ruler, Prince, and never “in 
a trance.” But, at any rate, Bellarmine’s device of combining 
both translations is a stroke of excessive subtilty; for the He- 
brew cannot possibly mean both, but at least one or other. There 
must needs therefore be an error here either in our editions or in 
the old Latin. 


[S LED niowso TUN . In the LXX. émorpépa év Bv0ois Cadacons.] 
[ OT, LXX. & éxoráce, deriving it from oT), which is used, in 
Niphal, to denote deep slumber and prostration of sense. ] 


190 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


The thirteenth place is Psalm exxxi. [exxxii.] 15: Viduam ejus 
benedicens benedicam. It is in the Hebrew, “ her victuals.” There 
cannot possibly be a more shameful mistake than this. For what hath 
the Lord’s promise to supply us abundantly with victuals, and, as 
it were, to care for our necessary provisions; what hath this, I say, 
to do with “a widow?” Here, though Bellarmine cannot avoid 
acknowledging a manifest error, yet he does not think that the 
place should be altered, because viduam hath been ever read and 
chanted in the church. Is it thus that errors are defended by 
their antiquity ? Could the church thus perversely interpret 
scripture? Is it so, that false interpretations should not be cor- 
rected when once confirmed by long usage in the church? That 
we should read victum and not viduam, the Hebrew word itself 
cries out to us, Jerome testifies in his Psalter and his Questions on 
Genesis, Symmachus, cited by Theodoret, on the Psalms, Chryso- 
stom and Theodoret himself. The fact that some Latin copies of 
the Vulgate edition have viduam, hath arisen from an error of cer- 
tain Greek MSS., in which x;pav was read instead of 05pav. Yet 
so obstinate are our adversaries in the defence of all errors that, 
let the mistake be never so notorious and the cause of it never so 
manifest, they will nevertheless endure no change, no correction. 

Hitherto then Bellarmine hath fought his best for the old Latin 
edition of the Psalms, and yet hath no great reason to suppose that 
he hath fully acquitted himself of his task. For these which Calvin 
hath touched are but a few errors, if compared with that multitude 
which are to be found in that old Latin edition of the Psalms. To 
enable you the more readily to perceive this, I will adduce the 
testimony of a single Psalm; and that shall be the ninetieth (or, as 
they reckon, the eighty-ninth), which was composed by Moses the 
man of God. Let us briefly run over some verses of this Psalm, 
and compare their old Latin version with the Hebrew text. In the 
third verse the Latin copies read, following the version of the 
seventy translators: Ne convertas hominem in humilitatem: 
et dixisti, convertimini filii hominum. The Hebrew original yields 
a far different sense: ‘Thou convertest man to contrition, and 
sayest, Return, ye children of men.” How different are these two 
sentences! In the fifth verse the old Latin hath: Que pro nihilo 
habentur, eorum anni erunt; of which words I am not sure that 
any sense can be given. In the Hebrew it is thus: ** Thou takest 
them off with a flood: they are asleep." In the eighth verse the 
Vulgate reads; Posuisti seculum nostrum in illuminationem vul- 


s | QUESTION THE SECOND. 191 


tus tui. In the Hebrew text it is: “ Thou hast set our secrets in 
the light of thy countenance.” In the nineteenth verse it is thus 
in the Vulgate: Quoniam omnes dies nostri defecerunt, et in tra 
tua defecimus. Anni mostri sicut aranea meditabantur : dies 
annorum nostrorum in ipsis septuaginta anni: si autem in poten- 
tatibus, octoginta anni: et amplius eorum. labor et dolor; quo- 
niam supervenit mansuetudo, et corripiemur. What is the 
meaning of these words? or what interpreter is there learned 
enough (always excepting Genebrard) to undertake to give a suit- 
able explanation of them? The Hebrew is quite otherwise, both in 
expression and in sense: “ For all our days have declined in thine 
anger, we have spent our years like a tale. The days of our years, 
there are seventy years in them, or, at most, eighty years. Even 
the best of them is labour and trouble: when it is past, forthwith 
we flee away." 

In the eleventh and twelfth verses the Vulgate reads thus: .Et 
pre timore tuo tram tuam dinumerare. Dextram tuam sic 
notum fac, et eruditos corde in sapientia. In the Hebrew it is: 
* And as thy fear, is thy wrath: so teach us to number our days, 
and we shall bring our heart to wisdom." In the sixteenth verse, 
the Vulgate hath: Respice in servos tuos, et in opera tua, et dirige 
filios eorum. But the Hebrew: * Let thy work be clear to thy 
servants, and thy beauty in their children." 

This is sufficient to shew us how remarkable is the agreement 
between the Hebrew original and the Latin edition. There are 
seventeen verses in this Psalm; and I will venture to say that 
there are more errors in the old version of it than there are verses 
in the Psalm. But should any one suspect that the Hebrew text 
which is now in our hands is corrupt, let him consult Jerome's 
version in his Psalter and in his 139th Epistle to Cyprian!, where he 
will find the same Hebrew text of this Psalm as we have at present. 
The same is the case of the other Psalms also; so that it may be 
said with truth, that these which they read and chant in their 
sacred offices, are not the Psalms of David, but the blunders of the 
Greek and Latin translators. And since Bellarmine, at the close of 
his Defence, presses us strongly with the testimony of Pellican, I 
will pay him back with two for his one, and return him his own 
with interest. 

The first is that of Bruno Amerbach, in the Preface to his 
readers, which he has prefixed to his Psalter of Jerome; where, 
speaking of the old Greek and Latin editions of the Psalms, he 


[! Ep. exl. ed. Vallars. T. r. p. 1042.] 


192 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


says: “I have added the Greek, with which corresponds the next 
column, that common translation which is every where in use, 
which is the work of an uncertain author, and, to tell the truth, is 
sometimes utterly at variance with the Greek copy. Whether we 
are to blame for this the negligence of the translator, or the care- 
lessness of the transcribers, or, which is more probable, the pre- 
sumptuous ignorance of some meddling coxcomb, is a question which 
I shall not now examine!" The second is that of Lindanus a 
follower of the popish cause, who, in his third book de Optimo 
Gen. Interpr. c. 6, expresses his opinion that the Greek edition of 
the Psalms is not the version of the seventy interpreters, but of 
the apostate Symmachus, and that this old Latin translation is the 
work of some obscure Greek. His words are these: “ After fre- 
quent and deep reflection upon the translator of our Latin edition, 
I seem to perceive many indications which suggest to me a suspicion 
that the man was not a Latin, but some petty Grecian. Surely the 
ancient Church 1500 years ago, which used this version, could not 
have degenerated so much in so short a time from the purity of the 
Latin tongue. For the strange renderings which occur both in the 
Psalms and the new Testament are more numerous than we can 
possibly suppose the blunders of any man conversant with the Latin 
tongue, even learned from common talk and not from reading?." 
And then he goes on to prove, that the Greek edition of the Psalms 
now extant is not that ancient one which was composed by the 
seventy interpreters?. Hence we may learn what to think of 
Genebrard, who, in his Epistle to Castellinus, bishop of Rimini, 
maintains that this Greek edition is not only catholic, but either 
apostolical or the Septuagint. So far of the book of Psalms. 


(1 Grecum item adjecimus, cui respondet e regione translatio, que 
passim legitur, adndos, hoc est, auctore incerto, nonnunquam, ut dicam id 
quod res est, dis 6ua macév ab exemplari Greco dissidens. ^ Cujus rei culpa 
in interpretis oscitantiam, aut in librariorum incuriam, aut, quod verisimilius 
sit, alieujus nebulonis audacem imperitiam rejici debeat, nolo excutere in 
preesentia. ] 

(2 Sepe multumque de nostr: Latin: editionis interprete cogitans, plu- 
rima videre videor qu: ad suspicandum me invitant, ut non Latinum hominem 
sed Greeculum quempiam fuisse existimem. — Siquidem illa prisca ecclesia, 
ante annos 1500 hoc versione usa, haud ita potuit a Romans lingus puritate 
intra tantillum temporis degenerare. Nam que cum in Psalmis, tum in 
Novo Testamento occurrunt versionis offendicula, majora sunt quam ut ab 
homine Latinz linguse, etiam quee non jam ex lectione, sed ex sermone disci- 
tur, potuerint peccari.—p. 106. Colon. 1558.] 

[3 Compare Hody, Lib. 1v. p. 588.] 


XII. ] QUESTION THE SECOND. 193 


CHAPTER XII. 


OF CORRUPTIONS IN THE LATIN EDITION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


FINALLY, Bellarmine now undertakes the defence of the old 
Latin edition of the new Testament, and answers the objections 
of Chemnitz and Calvin to those places which they have asserted 
to be corrupted by the Latin translator. We proceed to break the 
force of this portion also of Bellarmine's defence, and to shew that 
the Greek original in the new Testament is purer than the Latin 
edition. 

The first place is Matth. ix. 13: Mon veni vocare justos, sed 
peccatores. Chemnitz asserts that a most noble passage is here 
mutilated, because the Latin hath nothing to represent ‘to re- 
pentance*"  Bellarmine's defence consists of three heads. First, 
he says that that clause is found in some Latin copies. I answer, 
that, however, it is not found in those which they use as the most 
correct and authentie, that is, the copies of that edition which the 
Louvain divines have published. And in their latest missal, when 
this part of the gospel is repeated upon the Feast of St. Matthew, 
the clause in question is omitted. 

Secondly, he pretends that it is most likely that this clause is 
superfluous in the Greek, and did not appear in the more accurate 
MSS. 

I answer, that this is by no means likely, since Chrysostom 
read that clause, as appears from his commentaries; and it is likely 
that Chrysostom had access to the most correct MSS. Theophylact 
too found the same clause in his copies; and Robert Stephens in 
those numerous and very faithful ones (one of which was the 
Complutensian) by the help of which he corrected his edition of 
the new Testament. 

Thirdly, he says that this clause is not necessary, since to 
call sinners and not the righteous, is the same thing as to exhort 
to repentance those who need it. 

I answer, that it is plainly necessary, because Luke, without 
all eontroversy, adds these words, chap. v. 32. For thus, by the 
unanimous suffrage of all the copies, we read in Luke, ov« édyAvOa 
Kadéoat Oikatovs, adn’ auapTwrous eig etTavoav. Besides, the 


[4 eis peravotay is wanting in the Vatican, Cambridge, and other ancient 


MSS. ; in the Persian, Syriae, Ethiopie, and Armenian versions, as well as in 
the Vulgate. ] 


[ WHITAKER. | iu 


194 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. Lon. 


reason of the thing leads us to the same conclusion. Fr it is one 
thing to call sinners, and another to call sinners to repentance ; as 
Theophylact writes, with great truth, upon this place in Matthew: 
OUX iva uetvwmaiy auapTwrol, arr (va petavoncwow' “not that 
they should remain sinners, but that they should repent.” 

The second place is John xiv. 26: Spiritus Sanctus suggeret 
vobis omnia, quecunque dixero vobis. The papists abuse this 
passage to prove, that whatever is defined in councils should be 
received as the oracles of the Holy Spirit. But in the Greek it is 
not *I shall say," but, *I have said," a eivov vpiv. Bellarmine 
says that the sense is the same as in the Greek; since we are to 
understand it to mean, not * what I shall then say,” but ** what I 
shall now say." 

I answer. The papists seize greedily upon all occasions, how- 
ever futile and absurd, to gain proof for their dogmas, and not 
seldom use arguments which are founded only in the errors of a 
translation. Thus from this place they gather that the Holy Ghost 
is the author of all the dogmas which they have invented and 
confirmed in their councils, although they cannot be supported by 
any scripture evidence. But Christ did not promise that he would 
hereafter say something which the Holy Ghost should teach them, 
but that what he had already said to them should be recalled to 
their mind and memory by the Holy Ghost. For Christ says not, 
gzávra à àv elm vpiv, but à eizov vuiv. Christ, therefore, had 
already told them all; but they had not yet learned it accurately 
enough, nor committed it to memory. Whence the falsehood of 
Bellarmine's exposition sufficiently appears; since Christ does not 
say, as he supposes, “The Spirit shall suggest to you whatever I 
shall now say,” but * whatever I have already said to you:” for a 
elroy does not mean “ what I shall say," but “what I have said." 
Thus the Latin version of this place is false, and even Bellarmine’s 
own exposition proves it false. 

The third place is Rom. i. 4: Qué predestinatus est filius 
Dei. In the Greek it is opicOévros, i.e. who was declared or 
manifested. Bellarmine tells us that opiCew never in the scrip- 
tures means to declare, and that all the Latins read thus, Qué 
predestinatus est. 

I answer. Firstly, that opiCew in this place does denote “ to 
declare,” as Chrysostom interprets it, who cannot be supposed 
ignorant of the just force and significance of the word. For 
having, in his first Homily upon the Romans, put the question, 7: 


e 


xit. | QUESTION THE SECOND. | 195 


otv éctw opicbévros ; he subjoins as synonymous terms, deryOév- 
Tos, amopavOevros, kpiÜévros" where he teaches us that opiCew 
in this passage means nothing else but to declare, shew, or judge. 
In the same way CEeumenius asserts that cov opicOévros is equi- 
valent to Tov a7rocecyÜévros or émiyvocÜ0évros. Nor do Theodoret 
or Theophylact vary from this explanation: so that Bellarmine’s 
confident assertion is manifestly destitute of all truth. What may 
be said with truth is, that neither in the scriptures nor anywhere 
else does opi(ew mean the same thing as to predestinate. 

Secondly, the Latin fathers followed the Vulgate translator, 
by whom this word is unskilfully and absurdly rendered, as Eras- 
mus and Faber and Cajetan tell us, and as every one who knows 
any thing of Greek must needs confess. As to Bellarmine’s 
assertion, that defined and predestinated are perfectly equivalent 
terms, I leave it without hesitation to the general judgment of all 
learned men. 

The fourth place is Rom. i. at the end, where we have in the 
Vulgate edition, Qui cum justitiam Det cognovissent, non intellex- 
erunt, quoniam qui talia agunt digni sunt morte; non solum qui 
ea faciunt, sed etiam qui consentiunt facientibus!. Chemnitz, 
Valla, Erasmus, and others, agree that this place is corrupt. For 
in the Greek text it runs thus: otriweg TO Oaíeua ToU Qeod 
emiyvóvres (S71 of TA ToiaUra m páccovres ator Üavárov eiciv) 
oU povor avTd ToLovVaLW, GAAA Kal GuvevookoUot rois TPATCOVEL. 
Yet Bellarmine is not ashamed to say that the Latin reading is the 
truer. For, says he, according to the Greek the sense is, that it 
]s worse to consent to an evildoer than to do ill oneself; whereas, 
taken absolutely, it is worse to do ill than to consent to another 
doing ill. | 

I answer: Bellarmine is not very accurate in his estimate of 
the magnitude of sins. For to have pleasure in the wicked is one 
of those gravest sins, which are not committed but by the most 
abandoned men. To sin at all is of itself impious, and deserves 
eternal punishment, however much it be done against our better con- 
science and with internal struggles; but to approve our sins and 
those of other men, to deem them well done, to applaud them in 
our feelings and judgment, and to take pleasure in sins (which is 


[! This reading of the Vulgate is however strongly supported by the 
Clermont MS., and the apparent citation in Clement's 1 Ep. ad Cor. c. 35 
(pp. 120, 122, ed. Jacobson). Mill and Wetstein declare in its favour; but see 
on the other side Whitby, Examen Var. Lect. 1. 1. $ 1. n. 16.] 


e 13—2 


196 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


what the apostle means by cuvevdoxerv), is almost the very height 
and climax of iniquity. This is the assent which Paul condemns 
in this place, and which is indeed almost the last step in sin. The 
sense of the Greek therefore is very true; and is what is given by 
the Greek interpreters, Chrysostom, Theodoret, CEcumenius and 
Theophylact. And in all the Greek copies which Stephens followed, 
that is, all which he could by any means procure, there was no 
variety of reading in this place. That the Latin fathers read it 
otherwise, need not surprise us; since they did not consult the 
originals, but drew from the streams of this Vulgate translator. 
And though Bellarmine affirms the Latin text to be altogether pre- 
ferable to the Greek, yet other papists entertain an altogether dif- 
ferent opinion. “To speak my mind freely," says Catharinus, 
upon the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, “the Greek 
reading pleases me far better. The construction runs on easily and 
without any rubs’.” 

The fifth place is Rom. iv. 2; where Abraham is said not to 
have been justified by works. In their Latin edition it is added 
* of the law,” as if the apostle were speaking of the ceremonies of 
the law. But Bellarmine says that all, or almost all, the Latin 
copies omit the word legis. This I admit, if he speak of the copies 
at present generally in men’s hands: for some centuries ago all, 
or almost all the copies had legis, as is plain from some ancient 
fathers, the scholastic divines, Lyra, Aquinas, Carthusianus, and 
others. How the passage ought to be understood, and what kinds 
of works the Apostle excludes from justification, shall be explained 
hereafter in its proper place. 

The sixth place is Rom. xi. 6; where these words are omitted, 
* But if it be of works, then is it not of grace: otherwise work is 
no more work?.” Bellarmine confesses that this sentence is in the 
Greek, but says that it is recognised by none of the commentators 
upon this place except Theophylact. Which assertion is wholly 
untrue ; since CIZeumenius exhibits and explains this same sentence, 
as also Theodoret and Chrysostom: which latter he nevertheless 
affirms, naming him expressly, not to have made any mention of 
this sentence. Bellarmine did not examine Chrysostom in this 


facile procedit litera et sine ullo scrupulo. Comm. in Epp. Paul. p. 21. Paris. 
1566.] 

[? This clause is omitted in the Alexandrian, and several other ancient 
MSS.] 


x1. | QUESTION THE SECOND. 197 


place, but gave too much credit to Erasmus, who falsely denies that 
it is to be found in Chrysostom’. For Chrysostom reads it thus: 
et d€ €& Cpryov ovk Ett €o Tl apis" Emel TO Epryov ovk ETL él 
épyov. But what if the clause were not to be found in the 
commentaries of these writers? Must we, therefore, deem it 
spurious? By no means. For the Greek copies, and very nu- 
merous MSS. of the greatest fidelity, and the most ancient Syrian 
translator, will suffice to prove that this sentence came from the 
apostle’s pen; whose evidence is still more confirmed by the very 
antithesis of the context and the sequence of the reasoning. For, 
as the apostle says, * If it be of grace, then it is not of works; for 
then grace would not be grace;" so to balance the antithesis he 
must say, “If it be of works, it is not of grace; for then work 
would not be work.” 

The seventh place is Eph. v. 52: Sacramentum hoc magnum 
est. Where our divines have no other complaint to make, but that 
the papists abuse the ambiguity of the term to prove that matrimony 
is a sacrament. For the word in the Greek is wuornpiov, which 
is never in scripture used to denote what we properly call a sacra- 
ment. It is absurd, therefore, for the schoolmen to conclude from 
this place that matrimony is a sacrament.  Cajetan's words are 
these*: “A prudent reader will not gather from this place that 
Paul teaches that marriage is a sacrament. For he does not say, 
This is a sacrament, but a great mystery.” For which true speech 
of his the cardinal receives hard usage from Ambrose Catharinus in 
the fourth book of his Annotations. 

The eighth place is Eph. vi. 18: Ut possitis resistere in die 
malo, et ir omnibus perfecti stare. In the Greek it is dravta 
kaTep'yacdj.evot, Which does not mean perfect in all things. 
Some explain the passage as if it were omnibus perfectis, “all 
things being complete," that is, when ye have procured and put on 
al the arms which are needful to you for this warfare. But 
Chrysostom (followed here by CEcumenius) hath better understood 
the force of the verb xatepyacacOa. For karepryacactat 
denotes to conquer completely, to subdue and quell all the powers 
of an adversary. The panoply here spoken of enables us not only 
to resist in the evil day, but also &zavra katepyacapevor, that is, 


[3 It is indeed in the Text, but not in the Commentary.] 

[* Non habet ex hoc loco prudens lector a Paulo, conjugium esse sacra- 
mentum. Non enim dicit sacramentum, sed, Mysterium hoc magnum est. 
p. 278. 2. Paris. 1571.] 


198 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


having quelled and taken out of the way (for so Chrysostom and 
CEeumenius explain the apostle’s expression) whatever opposes us, 
to stand firm ourselves and unconquered. 

But this is quite a different thing from the reading in the old 
books, tn omnibus perfecti; from which false rendering false ex- 
planations also have arisen. Thomas explains the words “in all 
things" to mean in prosperity and in adversity ; and here he makes 
out a twofold perfection!, one of the way, the other of the home; — 
which, although they are true in themselves, are things wholly 
impertinent to the passage before us. 

The ninth place is Heb. ix. 28: Ad multorum exhaurienda 
peccata. In the Greek it is, ete To zoAXGv aveveryKery auaprias* 
which means, “to bear away the sins of many.” Now sins are 
borne away when they are remitted, which takes place in this 
life; but they are exhausted or drained off, when we are wholly 
purified and no remains of sin left in us, which does not take place 
in this life. For, since our adversaries seize on the most slender 
occasions to sophisticate the truth, the Holy Spirit must be every- 
where vindicated from their calumnies. Now whereas Bellarmine says 
that the translator hath rendered this place with great propriety, I 
would desire him to produce an example where aveveyxery means 
to exhaust. For, although ava@épw means “to bear upward,” yet 
bearing up and drawing are not the same thing as exhausting or 
draining. He who draws from a fountain, does not consequently 
exhaust the fountain itself. But avadépew more frequently denotes | 
“to take away or bear;" as, both in this place and another similar 
one, 1 Peter ii. 24, Christ is said aveveryyketv eis to £vXov our 
sins, that is, *to have borne them on the tree," as there even the 
old translator hath rendered it. 

The tenth place is Heb. xii. 16: Talibus hostiis promeretur 
Deus. In the Greek it is, roravrais Óvotais evapeo Terra o Ocos* 
* with such sacrifices God is well pleased." Bellarmine is not 
ashamed to produce a defence of his own, such as it is, for this 
place also. In Latin, says he, one is correctly said to deserve 
well of the person whom he gratifies by his actions. 

I answer in the first place, that I grant that amongst men 
there is room for merit, since all things are not due to all. It 
may therefore be correctly said, that we deserve well of those 

[| P. 171. Antverp. 1591. The Schoolmen were fond of the distinction 


of Via and Domus; meaning by the former, the present, and by the latter, 
the eternal life.] 


xit. | QUESTION THE SECOND. 199 


upon whom we have bestowed any benefit which hath flowed merely 
from our own free choice. But when the matter is between us 
and God, farewell all merit; since whatever we do pleasant to him, 
we yet do no more than we already owed to him. Wherefore 
when we have done all that we can do in any way, we are never- 
theless still, as Christ expresses it, ax petot doUAot. Besides, I ask 
Bellarmine whether, in their theology, to deserve well of God means 
nothing more than to do what is pleasing to him. I would it were 
so: for then they would not err so much upon the merit of works. 
We ourselves say that the good works of the saints are grateful 
and pleasant to God; but the whole dispute is about the merit of 
works. Lastly, how senseless is this expression, T'alibus hostiis 
promeretur Deus ! 

The eleventh place is James v.15: Et alleviabit eum Dominus. 
In the Greek it is, kai éyepec avrov o Kuptos. “ And the Lord 
shall raise him up.” Here Bellarmine disputes, by the way, upon 
the effects of extreme unction against Chemnitz. Although there 
is no capital fault in the translation, yet the place might be more 
correctly rendered than it is by the Latin interpreter. As to 
their popish unction, James makes no mention of it here; as 
Cajetan himself abundantly teaches us in his commentary upon the 
passage. His words are: “Neither in terms, nor in substance, 
do these words speak of the sacramental anointing of extreme 


unction?;” which he proves by three very solid arguments drawn 


.from the passage itself. But this is not the place for disputing 
concerning the sacramental unction. 

The last place is 1 John v. 18: Hee scribo vobis, ut sciatis 
quoniam vitam habetis eternam, qui creditis in nomine Filii Dei. 
And so indeed the text is exhibited in some Greek copies, as 
Robert Stephens informs us in his Greek Testament. But the 
majority, even the Complutensian, otherwise, thus: ravTa éypav/a 
UIV TOLS TiGTCVOUVCiP Els TO Ovoua TOU YioU Tov Ocov, tva 
eiógre OTL (env aiwvov EXETE, Kal Wa WioTEUNTE Eis TO Ovoua 


ToU Yiov tov Oeov. But we do not choose to raise any great 


contention with our opponent upon the reading of this passage, 
since there is no difference in the sense. For Bellarmine’s attempt 
to shew that it is better in the Latin than in the Greek, because 
there was no need to admonish them to do what they had done 
already, is a mode of reasoning unworthy of so great a theologian. 


[2 Nec ex verbis, nec ex effectu, verba hee loquuntur de sacramentali 
unctione extreme unctionis. p. 419.] 


200° THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cu. 


For we too often admonish men to do what they are doing, ac- 
cording to that saying, Qui monet ut facias quod jam facis; and 
this is a thing of constant occurrence in the scriptures. Thus 
those who believe in Christ are to be perpetually admonished to 
increase and remain constant in that faith. 

And now Bellarmine thinks that he hath satisfactorily answered 
all our charges against the old translation of the new Testament. 
But how small a portion is this of the errors which may be found 
and censured in that version! I am disposed therefore to bestow 
a little more time upon examining it, and producing some more 
of its faults, not all indeed (for that would be a tedious and difficult 
task), but still too many, so as to enable you the better to judge 
how very far it is from being pure and authentic. 

Matth. ii. 2, the old version hath, appropinquabit regnum 
colorum. In the Greek it is Zry-we, “hath drawn nigh.” So 
also in chap. iv. 17. In Matth. iv. 4, the word “openly” is 
omitted in the old version, though the Greek text is, azoówocet cot 
€v tw Qavepé. And v. 7, the old translator renders un Barro- 
Aoynante by nolite multum loqui. But (JarToXoyye:w means 
something different from much speaking. For Christ does not 
prohibit long prayers, but the tedious and hypocritical repetition 
of the same words. At v. 11, he hath rendered dprov éziovciov 
by panem supersubstantialem. And v. 25 in the Latin runs thus: 
Ne solliciti sitis anime vestro quid manducetis. In the Greek, 
Tl darynre kat Ti migre' “What ye shall eat and what ye shall _ 
drink." At v. 32, in the Latin, Seit Pater vester : in the Greek, 
o Harnp ULV O ovpavtos. Chap. vii. 14, in the Latin, Quam 
angusta porta! In the Greek, ore ovevy 5 cvy “ For strait 
is the gate.” Chap. ix. 8, timuerunt occurs in the Latin, instead 
of “they wondered," since the Greek hath eQavguacav. Chap. ix. 
15, Fili sponsi for the “children of the bride-chamber," the 
Greek being o: viol tov. vuudwvos. The same mistake recurs 
Luke v. 94. Chap. xiv. 3, the name of Philip is omitted in the 
Latin, though exhibited by the Greek copies. He was the brother 
of Herod, whose wife the impious Herod had united to himself in 
an incestuous union. Verse 21, the Latin reads, quinque millia ; 
in the Greek it is, woet zevrakw xor, “about five thousand." 
Verse 26, the word, * the disciples," is omitted: for in the Greek 
we have ióóvres avTOv ot paÜ5ral, where the Latin gives only 
videntes eum. Chap. xv. 8, in the Latin, Populus hic labiis me 
honorat; but in the Greek, eyy ier pot 0 Aads OUTOS TQ TTOMAaTE 


xit.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 201 


avTGv, kai Tors xeiAeci ue Tiuq' “This people draweth nigh 
unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips." At 
v. 91 there is nothing to express “the maimed to be whole," 
though the Greek hath kvAAXoUs v'ytets. 

Chap. xvii. 19 : in the Latin, Quare nos non potuimus ejicere 
allum ? instead of tllud “it,” that is, the demon; for the Greek is, 
ekaNeiv avro. Chap. xvii, in the last verse, there is nothing 
in the Latin corresponding to va TapaTTwMaTa avTOv, ‘their 
offences,” in the Greek. Chap. xix. 7 stands thus in the Latin: 
Quid me interrogas de bono? unus est bonus, Deus. But in most, 
and the most correct, Greek copies, we read, 74 pe Aéryei«s aryabov; 
ovóeis a'yaÜ0s, ei wn eis, 0 Oeo. that is, “ Why callest thou me 
good? There is none good but one, God.” Chap. xx. 9: in the 
Latin, acceperunt singulos denarios, instead of “every man a 
penny;” for the Greek hath &Aajgov ava ógvapiov. And the 
like mistake is made again in the next verse. At verse 15, we 
have in the Latin, aut non licet mé quod volo facere? instead of, 
“is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?” In 
the Greek, 5 ov« eteo i uot Tot5cat 0 OédXw €v Tots €uois ; Chap. 
xxi. 30: Eo, domine, is in the Latin instead of, “I, Sir," é-w, 
kupte. Chap. xxiv. 6: Opiniones proeliorum, in the Latin, for 
“rumours of wars," axoas soAeucov. Chap. xxvi. 61: cua Tpiwv 
nucpwv, which means, “in three days," is rendered in the old 
version post triduum; and v. 71, the Latin hath exeunte illo 
januam, instead of, * when he went out into the vestibule," since 
the Greek is é£eA80vra eie Tov vvAGva. Chap. xxviii. 2, in the 
Latin, after the words revolvit lapidem, there is an omission of 
“from the door,” azo Ovpas. 

Mark ii. 7, the Latin reads: Quid Aic sic loquitur? blas- 
phemat; instead of, * Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies?” 
Tl ovTos ovTw AaAei Bracdnptias ; 

Mark in. 39, in the Latin, Reus erit eterni delicti, instead 
of “eternal judgment," aiwviov kpicews. Mark xiv. 14, in the 
Latin there is, Ubi est refectio mea? instead of, * Where is the 
guest-chamber ?" z0oU éoTi TO karaAvua; 

Luke i. 28 in the Latin runs thus, Ave, gratia plena; but 
kexaprrep.éyi is ‘highly favoured” or “freely loved,” not * full 
of grace.” Luke ii. 40, the Latin hath, puer crescebat et con- 
Jortabatur, wherein “in spirit" is left out!. Luke iii. 13, in the 
Latin, nihil amplius, quam quod constitutum est vobis, faciatis. 

[! mvevpare is omitted in some Greek MSS. also. See Grotius in loc.] 


202 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


But in this place rpdccew does not mean “to do," but “to ex- 
act ;” for it is the publicans that the Baptist here addresses. Luke 
vi. 11, in the Latin, ipst repleti sunt insipientia, instead of, “ with 
madness ;” écA5cÓ5cav avoias. Luke xi. 53, the old translator 
renders, arooTopatiCew avrov eri a eióvov by, os ejus opprimere 
de multis; absurdly, since it means that they pressed him to 
speak of many things! Luke xiii 3, 4, runs thus in the Latin, 
nis penttentiam habueritis, omnes similiter peribitis: sicut alli 
decem. et octo, instead of, “or those eighteen," &c. Luke xv. 8, 
Evertit domum, instead of everrit, “she sweeps;" capot Tv owíav. 
A shameful and manifest error, which the Louvain editors perceived, 
but would not correct; I suppose on account of its antiquity, for 
thus hath the place been constantly read in their churches for 
many ages. The Ordinary Gloss interprets this woman to mean 
the church, who then turns her house upside down when she 
disturbs men's consciences with the conviction. of their guilt. 
But Dionysius Carthusianus hath a somewhat better explanation 
of the way in which the house is turned upside down, that is, 
when the contents of the house are carried about from one place 
to another, as people are wont to do when they search diligently 
for any thing. Nay, what surprises one still more, Gregory of 
Rome, a thousand years ago, read and expounded evertit domum, 
Hom. 34 in Evangel: so ancient are many of the errors of this 
translation. In the same chapter, verse 14, we have postquam 
omnia consummasset, instead of consumpsisset, dawavy9cavros. 
Chap. xvi. 22 is read thus in the Latin, Sepultus est in inferno. 
Elevans autem oculos, $c. Whereupon some Latin doctors and 
interpreters run out into many philosophieal speculations concerning 
the burial of the rich man in hell, which are all derived from the 
erroneous version of the place. For it ought to have been read, as 
it is read with great unanimity by the Greek copies, “ The rich 
man also' died, and was buried :” where Euthymius justly observes, 
that mention of the burial was made in the case of the rich, and not 
of the poor man; because the poor man had a mean grave, whereas 
the funeral of the rich man was performed with splendour and 
magnificence. Then in the text a new sentence begins, ** And in 
hell raising up his eyes,’ &c. Chap. xix. last verse, Omnis 


[! dzocropari(ew rather means to require one to speak off-hand and 
without premeditation. The reader will find all the learning of the ques- 
tion, as to the sense of this word, in Grotius upon Luke xi. 53, and Runkhen's 
note upon the word in Timzeus Lex. Platon.] 


xiu | QUESTION THE SECOND. 203 


populus suspensus erat, audiens illum, instead of, ** All the people 
hung upon him while they heard him." o Aaoós das éfekpépaTo 
aUTOU akovwy. 

John, chap. v. 16, after the words, Do eguoanu Jude 
Jesum, the clause, “and desired to slay him," «ai e(5 ovv avrov 
aTokTeivat, is left out. Chap. xii. 35: Adhue modicum lumen in 
vobis, for, * yet a little while is the light with you,” &v« wixpov 
ypovov TO das ueÜ' vpwv cori. Chap. xxi. 22: Ste eum volo 
manere donec veniam. Quid ad te? Whence some, deceived 
by the error of this version, have supposed John to be still alive. 
But we ought to read, * If I will that he tarry till I come, what 
is that to thee?” In the Greek, eàv avróv OérAw uévew Ews EpXo- 
uat, Tí qpos o€ 5 

Acts 1. 42: Et communicatione fractionis panis, for, ‘in 
communion and breaking of bread," xai 77H Kowwvig kai TH 
kage TOU prov. And at the last verse, in idipsum?, for, * the 
church,” 75 ékkXgoiq. Chap. i. 18: Qut prenunciavit, for, 
* which things he foretold,” a apoxatnyyene. Chap. x. 30: 
Usque ad hane horam, orans eram hora nona, instead of, “I 
was fasting until this hour, and at the ninth hour I was pray- 
: ing d ue ypt TauTys TNS woas iuge vgoTevcov?, kai THY evvaTny 
wpav mpocevxyopevos. Also at the close of verse 32, these 
words, * who when he is come shall speak to thee,” EN Trapa-^ye- 
vouevos AaAnoet got, are omitted. Chap. xii. 8: Calcea te caligas 
twas, for, “bind on thy sandals,” vaddyoat ta cavdoadid cov. 
Chap. xvi 13: Ubi videbatur oratio esse, for, * where prayer 
was wont to be made,” ov évout(ero zpocevy eivat. Chap. xviii. 
5: Instabat verbo Paulus, for, * Paul was bound in the spirit," 
GUvVetxerTo TO avevuatt. In the same chapter at verse 16, 
Minavit eos a tribunali, for, “he drave them from the judgment- 
seat,” amndacev. And at verse 21, this clause is omitted, “I 
must by all means keep this feast which cometh on in Jerusalem‘: 
Aer pe TavTws TV EopTHY THY épyyouevay TOLoat eis lepoco- 
Aupa. Chap. xix., in the last verse: Cum nullus obnoxius sit, for, 
^ since there is no cause,” unóevós aitiov vmapyovros. Chap. 
xxi. 12: Vir secundum legem, for,:*a pious man according to 


[2 The mistake arose from connecting the words ézi ró dvró, which form 
the commencement of the next chapter, with the close of this one. The 
Ethiopic agrees with the Vulgate in omitting r7 €kkAgoía.] 

[3 Some MSS. agree with the Vulgate in omitting vgerévov.] 

{4 It is omitted in the Alex. and several other MSS. ] 


204 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


the law," avgp evoeBys. Chap. xxiv. 14: Quod secundum sec- 
tam, quam dicunt heresin, sic deservio Patri Deo meo, instead 
of, “that according to the way which they call heresy, so worship 
I the God of my fathers:” é71 kata 5v O00», Qv Aé*yovcw 
aipeow, ob tw Aarpeve TQ TaTpwy Oep. Chap. xxvii. 42: Ut 
custodias occiderent, for, “that they should slay the prisoners},” 
wa TOUS oec ue Tas ATOKTELVWCL. 

Rom. ii. 3: Quod judicas, instead of, “thou that judgest,” 
o kpiwov. Chap. v. 6: Ut quid enim Christus, cum adhue 
infirmi essemus, &c., instead of, “for Christ, when we were yet 
without strength," é71 yap X pic Tos ovTcv ypnwvacbevwv. And 
verse 13: Peccatum non imputabatur, cum lex non esset, for, 
“sin is not imputed where there is no law," auaptia ovk €AXo- 
ryetTae un Oovros vouov. Chap. vii. 25: Quis me liberabit de 
corpore mortis hujus? Gratia Dei per Jesum Christum, for, 
*I thank God through Jesus Christ," eU xa pu T o TQ Oeo eui 
'IgcoU Xpw oU. Chap. viii. 18: Existimo quod non sunt digne 
passiones, &c., for, ‘I reckon for certain,” AoryiCopat. Chap. xii. 
19: Non vosmet ipsos defendentes, instead of, “avenging,” 
excixouvtes. Chap. xii. 1: Que autem sunt a Deo, ordinata 
sunt?, for, “the powers that be, are ordained of God,” ai dé 
ovcat eFovoía,, vró Tov OcoU Teraypévat eicw. Chap. xiv. 5: 
Unusquisque in suo sensu abundet, for, “let each be fully per- 
suaded in his own mind,” éxacos €v TQ tlw vot wAnpoopeicOw. 
And at verse 6 is omitted, “and he that regardeth not the day, to 
the Lord he doth not regard it," xai o pn Qpovdv tHv nuépav 
Kvpip ov dpover. Chap. xvi. 28: Salutat vos Gaius hospes 
meus, et universa ecclesia, for, ‘‘and of the whole church,” 
Kai THS €kkAngoias OANS. 

1 Cor. ii. 5: Ministri ejus cui credidistis, for, ** ministers by 
whom ye believed," ókovo: à wv éziorevcave. Verse 9: Dei 
adjutores, instead of, “administrators or co-operators, cuvepryot. 
Chapter vi. last verse: Jn corpore vestro, omitting?, “and in your 
spirit, which are God's," xai €v TQ wvevpaTe vj.Gv, &rwa ea Ti 
ToU Qeov. Chapter ix. 22: Ut omnes salvos faciam, for, “that 


[! Instances however are found in good authors of Custodia meaning a 
prisoner as well as a guard. I need not cite instances of a meaning given 
in every common dictionary.] 

[? The fault is in the stopping. It should be, “ Que autem sunt, a Deo 
ordinate sunt."] 

[3 This clause is omitted also in the Alexandrian and several other MSS. ] 


X11. | | QUESTION THE SECOND. 205 


I may by all means save some," tva wavtwstivas cwaow*. Chap. 
xv. 23: Deinde ii qui sunt Christi, qui in adventum ejus eredi- 
derunt, for, “then those who are Christ's at his coming," ézeura 
vi Xpictov 6v TH sapovcia avroU. Verse 34: dd reverentiam 
vobis loquor, for, *I speak to inspire you with shame," 7 pos 
€vrpomiv vuiv reyw. Verse 51: Omnes quidem resurgemus, 
sed non omnes immutabimur, instead of, “ We shall not indeed all 
sleep, but we shall all be changed,” zavres pév ov kouuO5oone0a, 
mavres € addaynooucOa®. Verse 54, there is omitted, ** when 
this corruptible shall have put on incorruption,” óvav vo $Üaprov 
TOUTO evovanTat adQ0apciav. Verse 55: Ubi est mors stimulus 
tuus ? for, * Where is thy victory, O grave or hell?" zo) cov ady 
TO VikOS 5 

2 Cor. i. 11: Ut ex multarum personis facierum ejus quc in 
nobis donationis, per multos gratie agantur pro nobis. The 
words in the Greek are, tva é« moAX\@v TOGUT V TO eis "uas 
Xa pio ua cid vOÀÀGv evxapic 105 vmép yuev’ that is, “that the 
gift conferred upon us by many persons may be celebrated by 
many in returning thanks on our account." Chapter vii. 8: Non 
me paenitet etsi peniteret, instead of, “I do not repent, though I 
did repent,” ov uerajéXopat, et Kal peTeneNouny. Chapter ix. 1: 
Ex abundanti est mi scribere, for, “it is superfluous,” Tepla cov 
pot eoti. Chap. xii. 11: Factus sum insipiens, omitting the next 
word “in boasting,” kavx«p.evos. 

Gal. i. 24; Lex pedagogus noster fuit in Christo, for “ to 
Christ,” eis Xpictov. Chap. iv. 18: Bonum emulamini in bono 
semper, for, “it is good to be zealously affected always in a good 
thing ;” kaXov c0 CydovcOa ev xadk@ mavrore. At the end of 
this chapter the words, Qua libertate Christus nos liberavit, should 
be joined with the commencement of the next chapter. ‘In the 
liberty, wherewith Christ hath made us free, stand fast:” 77 
eAevOepta 7 X pia Tos nas 1 XevÜépwoe OTHKETE. 

Eph. i. 22, Super omnem ecclesiam, instead of, “over all 
things to the church," vzép wavra TH exkAnoia. Chap. ii. 10: 
Creati in Christo Jesu in operibus bonis, for, **to good works, emi 


[4 Several MSS. read zavras for mavtws tivds, and Mill was disposed to 
think it the true reading. ] 

[5 There is here considerable difference in the MSS. The Clermont 
reads with the Vulgate. Lachmann’s text gives mavres [uév] xouunOnodpeda, 
ov mavtes 06 aAÀaygoópne0a, following the Alexandrian MS. though not 
exactly. ] 


206 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


€pryois aryaBors. Chap. v. 4, Que ad rem non pertinent, for, 
* which are not convenient:" va pu: av5ykovra. 

Col. ii. 14: Chirographum decreti, for, “contained in ordi- 
nances,” «ois Oorypacty. 

2 Thess. n. 13: Elegit a Dominus primitias! in salutem, 
instead of, * from the beginning," am’ apyis. 

1 Tim. vi. 5: It omits, * HEINE from those that are such?," 
aQicTaco avo TOv ToovtTwv, 2 Tim. ii. 4: Ut ei placeat, cui 
se probavit, for, *that he may please him who hath chosen him 
to be a soldier:” fva 79 oTparoXo'yrjavrt apéon. 

Philem. 9: Cum sis talis ut Paulus senex, instead of, ** since 
I am such an one as Paul the aged." 

Heb. i. 3: Purgationem peccatorum faciens, omitting the 
words, * by himself,” à; éavrov?. Heb. iii. 8: Quanto ampliorem 
honorem habet domus*, for, “as he that built it hath more honour 
than the house," &c. Heb. xii 8: Ergo adulteri? et non filü 
estis, for “bastards and spurious, not sons:” apa voOa éore, Kat 
ovxX vio, In the same chapter, verse 18, accessibilem® ignem, for, 
“inflamed with fire,” xexavuevo Tupt. 

James i. 19: Scitis, fratres mei dilectissimi, instead of, *Where- 
fore, my beloved brethren,” ware’, aóeA oot pou ayarnrol. 

1 Pet. i. 5: Supereedificamini domos spirituales, for, “a 
spiritual house," oikos avevmatixos. Ibid. verse 23: Tradebat 
autem judicanti se injuste, for, “that judgeth righteously,” 7 
kpwovre orxatws. 1 Pet. iv. 14, it leaves out, “on their part he is 
blasphemed, but on your part he is glorified? :” xara uev avToUs 
[9Xac uucirat, kara O€ Upas dokaCerar. 

2 Pet. i. 3: Quomodo omnia nobis divine virtutis sue, que 


[| The Vulgate translator seems to have read dzapy5v, (which is still 
exhibited by some Greek MSS.) unless, indeed, primitias be itself a corrup- 
tion of primitus.] 

[? The clause is also omitted by the Alexandrian, Clermont, and other 
ancient MSS., and by the Ethiopic and Coptic versions.] 

[3 They are omitted in the Alex. and Vatican MSS., and several others.] 

[* But domus is here in the genitive, being governed of ampliorem, to 
correspond, barbarously enough, with the Greek construction. ] 

[5 But adulter is used adjectively in the sense of adulterinus, by Pliny, 
NEOED A83. 077. : 

[ Here we should read “accensibilem,” the translator taking xekavuévo 
to agree with rupli, as Wykadeopév@ does with dpe. See Grotius in loc.] 

[7 The Alex., Vatican, and some other MSS. read iore.] 

[3 It is omitted in the Alex. and some other MSS. ] 


xir.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 207 


ad vitam et pietatem, donata sunt, for, “ forasmuch as his divine 
power hath given us all things that are needful for life and 
godliness :” ws wavta nuiv THs Oeias Ovvapews avToU Td 7 pos 
Cai kai evoeBelav Sedwpnuevns? : verse 16, indoctas fabulas se- 
quuti, for “learned,” cecodiouévors uvÜois c£akoNovOrcavres, and 
in the same verse, Christó virtutem et prescientiam for, “the 
power and presence,” Ouvamu Kal mapovaiav. 2 Pet. ii. 8: Aspectu 
enim et auditu justus erat, habitans apud. eos, qui de die in diem 
animam justam iniquis operibus excruciabant ; instead of, ** for in 
seeing and hearing that righteous man, dwelling amongst them, 
vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unrighteous 
deeds :" BXépnart yep kai ako o dixatos, € €yka Toiv EV aUTOLS, 
juepav e£ 7 nue pas Wuxny Sela AVOMOLS Epryots éBacancen. 

1 John v. 17: Et est peccatum ad mortem, for, “and there is 
a sin not unto death;" xai éorw auapria ov TT pos OavaTov 9. 
3 John, 4. Majorem horum mon habeo gratiam, for, “I have 
no joy greater than these," ueiCorépav TOUTWY OUK S xepav ! 

Jude, 5 : Scientes semel omnia, for, *since ye know this once," 
eidoras dak Touro! Rev. ii. 14: edere et fornicari, for, “to eat 
those things which are sacrificed to idols, and to commit whore- 
dom:” gaye. eie ovra, kal TopveUgat, 

I have selected a few instances from many. Were I to pursue 
them all, I should make a volume. But these sufficiently prove the 
infinite and inveterate faultiness of the old Latin Version in the new 
Testament. Erasmus, therefore, when he desired a review of the 
new Testament, preferred translating it anew according to the Greek 
verity to spending his pains in correcting this old Latin edition. 
In like manner, Isidore Clarius of Brescia !? bemoans the wretched 
and squahd plight of this edition in both Testaments, and wonders 
at the negligence of learned men, who have never attempted to 
remove the innumerable errors, under which he affirms it to labour, 
adding that he hath himself noted and amended eight thousand 
passages |4, 

Such is that edition, even by their own confession, which we 


[9 A couple of unimportant MSS. read here 9e0cpnuéva with the Vulgate. | 

[19 The ov is also omitted in the Ethiopic.] 

[! Some MSS. here read xápw with the Vulgate.] 

[12 The Alex. and other most ancient MSS. here read závra with the Vul- 
gate. The Syriac appears to have read zavtes.] 

[133 In the preface to his edition of the Vulgate, Venice 1542.] 

[14 Etsi ea quam diximus usi fuerimus moderatione, loca tamen ad octo 


208 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


are now forsooth, at the pleasure of the Tridentine Fathers, com- 
manded to receive as authentic scripture. But let them take to 
themselves this old edition of theirs, while we, as the course to 
which reason constrains us, and Augustine, Jerome, and other illus- 
trious divines persuade us, and even the ancient decrees of the 
Roman pontiffs themselves admonish us, return to the sacred origi- 
nals of scripture. 





CHAPTER XIII. 


WHEREIN THE STATE OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING VERNACULAR 
VERSIONS IS EXPLAINED. 


We have now completed the first part of this second question, 
wherein we have proved that the authentic scripture lies not in the 
Latin version of the old translator, as the Tridentine fathers and 
the Jesuits would have it, but in the Hebrew and Greek originals. 
We have obviated the arguments of our opponents, and confirmed 
our own opinion. Now follows the second part of this question, 
which hath two principal divisions. For we must, in the first place, 
discuss vernacular versions of the scripture; and, in the second 
place, the performance of divine service in the vulgar tongue. 
Upon both subjects there are controversies between us. 

Now, as to vernacular versions of scripture, we must first of all 
inquire what is the certain and fixed opinion of the papists there- 
upon. Concerning vernacular versions of scripture there are at the 
present day three opinions entertained by men. The first, of those 
who absolutely deny that the scriptures should be translated into 
the vulgar tongue. 

The second, the opposite of the former, is the opinion of those 
who think that the holy scriptures should by all means be translated 
into the vulgar tongues of all people. 

The third is the opinion of those who neither absolutely con- 
demn, nor absolutely permit, vernacular versions of the scriptures, 
but wish that in this matter certain exceptions should be made, 
and regard had to times, places, and persons. This last is the 


millia annotata atque emendata a nobis sunt. Of these “ octo millia,” Walton, 
by what Hody calls “ingens memorize lapsus," has made octoginta millia erro- 
yum.—Proleg. §. 10. (T. 1r. p. 250. Wrangham.)] 


xu. | | QUESTION THE SECOND. 209 


opinion held by the papists, and the judgment ratified at Trent. 
They do not then seem to affirm that it is simply impious or un- 
lawful to translate the scriptures, or read them in the vulgar 
tongue; but they do not choose that this should be done com- 
monly or promiseuously by all, or under any other conditions than 
those which the council hath prescribed. 

There is extant concerning this matter a decree, in the fourth 
role of the index of prohibited books published by Pius IV., and 
approved by the council of Trent; which determination contains 
four parts: first, that no man may read the scriptures in the vul- 
gar tongue, unless he have obtained permission from the bishops 
and inquisitors: secondly, that the bishops should consult with the 
parish priest and confessor: thirdly, that the bishops themselves 
must not permit every kind of vernacular versions, but only those 
published by some catholic author: fourthly, that the reading even 
of these must not be permitted to every one, but only to those 
who, in the judgment of their curates and confessors, are likely to 
receive no damage therefrom, but rather an augmentation of faith, 
—those, that is, and those only, who they hope will be rendered 
thereby still more perverse and obstinate. Such are the subtle 
cautions of that decree; whence it is evident that the reading of 
the scriptures in the vulgar tongue is allowed to as small a number 
of persons as possible. They subjoin to this a reason which looks 
plausible at first sight ;—that it hath appeared by experience that, 
if the Bible were allowed to be read by all, without distinction, 
more injury than advantage would result, on account of the rash- 
ness of mankind. The force of this argument we shall examine in 
its proper place. 

Our Rhemish brethren are profuse of words in praising this 
decree, in the preface to their English version of the new Tes- 
tament. ‘Holy church,” they say, “knowing by her divine and 
most sincere wisedom, how, where, when, and to whom, these her 
maisters and spouses gifts are to be bestowed to the most good of 
the faithful; and therefore, neither generally permitteth that 
which must needs doe hurt to the unworthy, nor absolutely con- 
demneth that which may do much good to the worthie!:’—and so 
they conclude that the scriptures, although translated truly and in 
accordance with the catholic faith, must not be read by every one 
who has a mind to read them, but only by those who are specially 
and by name licensed by their ordinaries, and whom their curates 


[! Preface to the Reader, p. 4. Rhemes. 1582.] 


[ WHITAKER. | a 


210 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


and confessors have testified and declared to be fit and proper 
readers of the same. Now then, you sufficiently perceive that all 
men are excluded from the perusal of the scriptures in the vulgar 
tongues, save those who shall have procured a licence to read them; 
and such a licence none can procure, but those who are certainly 
known, by confession, and the whole course of their lives, to be 
obstinate papists. Those, therefore, who might desire to read the 
scriptures in order that they might learn from the scriptures the 
true faith and religion, these, unless they first swear an absolute 
obedience to the Roman pontiff, are by no means permitted to get 
a glimpse of the sacred books of scripture. Who does not see that 
the scriptures are taken from the people, in order that they may 
be kept in darkness and ignorance, and that so provision may be 
made for the safety of the Roman church and the papal sovereignty, 
which could never hold its ground if the people were permitted to 
read the scriptures? Wretched indeed is that religion, and 
desperate that state of things, where they are compelled to with- 
draw the scriptures from the eyes of men, and take off the people 
from the reading of the scriptures; which is the course pursued 
by our adversaries, as is manifest from the decree of the Tridentine 
council, and from the versions of the Rhemists. Such is also the 
opinion of Bellarmine, Lib. rr. c. 15. To which let me subjoin the 
testimony of Johannes Molanus, a divine of Louvain, and censor of 
books to both the pope and the king; who hath these words, in 
his book of Practical Theology, Tract. mr. c. 27: “Yet we deny 
that the study of the scriptures is required of them [laymen]; yea, 
we affirm that they are safely debarred the reading of the scrip- 
tures, and that it is sufficient for them to govern the tenor of their 
life by the directions of the pastors and doctors of the church! ;"— 
than which nothing could be said more shocking to common sense 
and decency. Similar to this is the opinion of Hosius, in his small 
piece upon divine service in the vulgar tongue, and that of the 
censors of Cologne against the preface of Monhemius. Sanders 
too, in the seventh book of his Monarchia visibilis, says that it 
is heretical to affirm that the scriptures ought necessarily to be 
translated into the vulgar languages. 

Such then is the determination of our adversaries. We, on the 


[! Negamus tamen ab eis requiri studium scripturarum : imo salubriter 
dicimus eos a lectione scripturarum arceri, sufficereque eis, ut ex prescripto 
pastorum et doctorum ecclesie vitee cursum moderentur. p. 105. 2. Colon. 
1585.] 


xii. | QUESTION THE SECOND. 211 


contrary, affirm that the reading of the scriptures should be com- 
mon to all men, and that none, however unlearned, should be 
debarred or deterred from reading them, but rather that all should 
be stirred up to the frequent and diligent perusal of them; and 
that, not only when the privilege of reading them is permitted by 
their prelates, but also although their ordinaries and confessors 
should prohibit it never so much. 

Accordingly we say that the scriptures should be translated 
into all the languages of Christendom, that all men may be enabled 
to read them in their own tongue. This is declared by the confes- 
sion of all the churches. This is true; and this we shall shew to be 
agreeable to the scriptures. The state of the question, therefore, 
is, —whether or not vernacular versions of the scriptures are to be 
set forth and permitted to all promiscuously. They hold the nega- 
tive, we the affirmative; and we must first examine and refute 
their arguments, and then apply ourselves to the support of our 
own cause. Our attention shall be principally directed to our 
Jesuit Bellarmine. 





CHAPTER XIV. 


WHEREIN THE ARGUMENTS OF OUR ADVERSARIES AGAINST 
VERNACULAR VERSIONS ARE REFUTED, 


TueE first argument of the Jesuit, whereby he proves vernacu- 
lar versions by no means necessary, is drawn from the practice of 
the church under the old Testament, from the time of Ezra until 
Christ. He affirms, that from the times of Ezra the Hebrew 
language ceased to be the vulgar tongue amongst the people of 
God, and yet that the scriptures were in the church in Hebrew 
after those times. But how does he prove that the Hebrew 
language was then unknown to the people? Because, says he, 
the Jews who dwelt in Babylon forgot their own language, and 
learned the Chaldee, and thenceforward the Chaldee or Syriac 
became their mother tongue. It remains that we listen to the tes- 
timonies by which all these statements are substantiated. 

The first is taken from the old Testament, Nehem. viii. : where 
we read that Nehemiah, and Ezra, and the Levites read the book 

14—2 


212 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


of the law to the people, and gave the interpretation, because the 
people understood nothing of what was read to them; but upon 
Ezra's supplying the interpretation the people were greatly rejoiced, 
because they then understood the words of the law. 

I answer, in the first place, that the Jesuit hath grossly abused 
that place in Nehemiah. For it is clear from the passage itself, 
that the people did understand correctly enough the words which 
were read to them ; whence it follows that the language was not 
unknown to them. At verse 3, Ezra is said to have brought the 
book of the law, and to have read in the presence of a multitude of 
men and women, and as many as were capable of understanding, 
that is, who were old enough to understand anything, or, as the 
Hebrew expression is, who heard intelligently’. Therefore they 
not only heard, but heard intelligently, that is, understood what 
they heard. Hence, in verse 4, Ezra is said to have read before 
the men and women, and those who understood; and the people to 
have had their ears attentive to the book of the law. Now, why 
should the people have listened so attentively, if they did not un- 
derstand what they heard? In the same place, Ezra is related to 
have read out of the book from morning until evening ; and, in 
verse 19, every day for seven days, from the first day until the 
last. Assuredly, he would not have taken so much trouble in read- 
ing, unless he had auditors who could understand him; and it was 
certainly very far from a prophet's wisdom to assemble a multitude 
of persons, then come forth into the midst of them, open the book, 
and read so earnestly, and for the space of so many hours, what 
the people could not at all understand. Besides, what was the rea- 
son of his reading (v. 9?) plainly, as Tremellius, or distinctly, as 
the old translator renders it, but that, by that plain reading of the 
scripture, the whole people might the better understand what was 
being read to them? For it is no matter whether you read well 
or ill to those who understand nothing of what is read. 

But Bellarmine objects that great joy was excited in the peo- 
ple, when by Ezra's interpretation they came to understand the 
words of the law. What a subtle Jesuit! He feigns that Ezra 
first read to the people words which they did not uuderstand, and 
afterwards rendered or translated them into other words, and that 
language with which the people were acquainted; which is alto- 


[ own] 
[? ver. 8. in the Hebrew. The word is Un ag 


XIV. | | QUESTION THE SECOND. 213 


gether absurd. For Ezra read the words of the law openly and 
publicly from a pulpit, and continued that reading through the 
space of some hours, then expounded the scripture which had been 
read, and opened up the sense and meaning of the words to the 
people. For so at verse 9, the Levites are said “to have ex- 
pounded the sense, and given the meaning by the scripture itself,” 
as Tremellius hath most correctly interpreted the passage. Vata- 
blus hath translated it thus, “explaining the sense, and teaching 
as they read?;" whichis not very different. And the old trans- 
lator thus, * Plainly that it might be understood; and they under- 
stood when it was read‘;” which sufficiently proves that the people 
understood what was read to them. Ezra was therefore said to be 
skilful in the law, not because he could read and understand the 
words and text of the law, but because he explained the sense and 
meaning of the law, so as to enable the people to understand it. 
And hence sprang that gladness, which the scripture tells us that 
the people felt when they heard the law expounded by Ezra. 
The thing is plain and certain, nor do we need the aid of com- 
mentaries. 

The other testimony which the Jesuit uses in this matter, to 
prove that Hebrew was not the vulgar tongue of the Jews after 
Ezra, is drawn from the new Testament, from which it appears 
that the people used the Syriac language. For Talitha cumi, 
Mark v., Abba, Mark xiv., Aceldama, Acts i, and Matth xxvii. 
Golgotha and Pascha, are neither Greek nor Hebrew. More ex- 
amples are given by Jerome in his book, de Nominib. Hebr. The 
same fact is indicated by the saying, John vii, “This multitude 
which knoweth not the law.” Hence it is manifest that the Hebrew 
was not at that time the mother tongue of the Jews. 

I answer, in the first place, that this may, to some extent, be 
allowed true, but that, in the sense in which Bellarmine affirms it, 
it is altogether false. I acknowledge that the language was not 
pure Hebrew, but corrupted with many alien and foreign terms, so 
as to become, as it were, a new dialect compounded of Hebrew and 
Chaldee. Yet, in the meanwhile, the people had not forgotten the 
Hebrew language, neither immediately after the captivity, nor in 
the succeeding times. For, Nehem. xiii, certain Jews are said 
to have married wives of Ashdod, whose children spake in the 
language of Ashdod, and not in Hebrew. The people in general 


[3 Explicantes sententiam et erudientes inter legendum.] 
[* Aperte ad intelligendum; et intellexerunt cum legeretur.] 


214 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cu. 


therefore spoke Hebrew. Indeed it is impossible that, in the space 
of seventy or even one hundred years, the people should so wholly 
lose their native language as not even to understand it. If this 
had been the case, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi,—prophets 
who lived after the return— would not have published their dis- 
courses in Hebrew, but in the vulgar tongue. It is, therefore, 
absolutely certain, that the Jews understood Hebrew after the times 
of Ezra. 

Secondly, as to the terms which are not pure Hebrew in the 
new Testament, the thing proved comes merely to what I have 
observed already, that the language of the people had, at that 
time, greatly degenerated from its native integrity ; yet not to 
such a degree as would be inconsistent with supposing that Hebrew 
was spoken by the better educated, and understood by all; so as 
that the scriptures, when publicly read in Hebrew, might be 
understood by the people. Christ, therefore, John v. 39, bids 
even the laity “search the scriptures.” Greek they did not 
understand; and the Chaldee paraphrase was not then published, 
or, if published, was unintelligible to them. It was the Hebrew 
scriptures, therefore, which Christ commanded them to read; which 
command he never would have issued, if the people could not 
understand the scriptures in the Hebrew language. The Jews 
of Berea, also, of whom we have an account, Acts xvil. 11, searched 
the scriptures diligently. So Christ read the prophet Isaiah in 
the synagogue, as we find in Luke iv. 18; and no one doubts 
that he read it in Hebrew. So Acts xv. 21, James says, that 
* Moses of old times hath in every city them that preach him, 
being read in the synagogues every sabbath-day.” Whence also 
it is plain, that avaywooxew and xnpvocew are different things. 
And, Acts xiii. 15, “after the reading of the law and the prophets,” 
Paul was desired to address the people if it seemed fit to him. 
What end could it serve to read the scriptures so diligently in the 
synagogues, and that the people should assemble every sabbath-day 
to hear them read, if they were read in an unknown language ? 
The title which Pilate affixed to the cross was inscribed with 
Hebrew words, and many of the Jews read it, John xix. 20. And 
Paul, Acts xxvi. 14, says that he heard Christ speaking to him “ in 
the Hebrew tongue.” He himself also addressed the people in the 
Hebrew tongue, Acts xxi. 40. And (chap. xxii. at the commence- 
ment) when they heard him speaking to them in the Hebrew 
tongue, they kept the rather quiet, and rendered him still greater 


XIV. | QUESTION THE SECOND. 215 


attention. Theophylact observes upon that place, opa@s mas avTovs 
elke TO opotopwvov; eixov yap Twa alow Tpos THY yAwWTTAP 
exeivyv, as much as to say, that they were caught by perceiving 
his language to be the same as their own, and by a certain reve- 
rence which they entertained for that tongue. I produce these 
testimonies not to prove this language to have been pure Hebrew ; 
but to shew that it was not altogether different from the Hebrew, 
since it is called Hebrew, and was understood by the people. Now 
it could not be called Hebrew, if those who used it were not even 
able to understand Hebrew. Although, therefore, it was full of 
foreign mixtures, which the people had brought with them from 
Babylon, or contracted from the neighbouring nations; yet it re- 
tained a great deal of its native genius, enough to enable the 
people, though they could not speak Hebrew as purely as in 
former times, to recognise and understand the scriptures when read 
to them in Hebrew. The difference is not so great as to prevent 
this. For, although the dialect of the Scots and English, nay, of 
the southern and northern English themselves, is not the same; yet 
the Scots read the English version of the scriptures in their 
churches, and the people understand it. Thus the Jews, though 
they did not speak pure Hebrew, as the Scots do not speak pure 
English, could yet understand the scriptures when read to them 
in Hebrew by their priests and Levites. Thus the bystanders 
could sufficiently understand Peter, although they knew him to be 
a Galilean by his manner of speaking. Matth. xxvi. 73. Formerly 
the Greek language had various dialects, the Ionic, the Doric, and 
the rest; yet all Greeks were able to understand each other. 
Thirdly, the Jesuit hath shamefully perverted the testimony 
from John vii. 49: * This multitude which knoweth not the law.” 
For the saying is to be understood not of the language, words, and 
letters, but of the sense and meaning of the law. The Pharisees arro- 
gated to themselves a most exact knowledge of the law, and, puffed 
up with that conceit, thus proudly despised the common people. 
Now as to the assumption, that the scriptures were at that 
time read in Hebrew in the synagogues, I acknowledge it to be 
true. Why should they not have been read in Hebrew, when the 
people understood them in that language? Bellarmine ought to 
have proved that the people could not understand the Hebrew 
language; and then he would have done something to the purpose. 
But there are no proofs to demonstrate that assertion, which hath 


[! Opp. T. rr. p. 160. Venet. 1758.] 


216 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


been already refuted by many arguments. For as to the objection 
urged in the epitome of Bellarmine’s lectures,—that when Christ 
exclaimed, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani, some said that he called for 
Elias, because they did not understand the language in which he 
spoke,—I reply, that it may be either that they mocked him 
maliciously, or had not perfectly heard the words, or were soldiers 
who were generally foreigners and Romans; which latter sup- 
position is rendered probable by the circumstance that, whereas 
Luke tells us that “the soldiers gave him vinegar to drink," chap. 
xxii. 36; Matthew writes, that one of those who said this hastily 
filled a sponge with vinegar, and presented it to Christ, chap. xxvii. 
48. Jerome explains it otherwise, supposing that the Jews, in 
their usual manner, seized upon the occasion of maligning the Lord, 
as if he implored the assistance of Elias through inability to defend 
and deliver himself. Nothing, therefore, can be elicited from this 
passage, to prove that the people did not understand the Hebrew 
language. 

The second argument is taken from the example and practice 
of the apostles. For the apostles preached the gospel through the 
whole world, and founded churches, as is plain from Rom. x., Col. i., 
Mark xvi, Irenzeus, Lib. i. c. 3!, who says, that in his time 
churches were founded in the East, in Libya, in Egypt, in Spain, 
in Germany, in Gaul; and yet the apostles did not write the 
gospels or their epistles in the languages of those people to which 
they preached, but only in Hebrew or Greek. This argument is 
borrowed by Bellarmine from Sanders, de visibil. Monarch. 
Lib. vir. 

I answer, in the first place: the church could for some time do 
without vernacular versions, just as for some time it could do 
without the scriptures of the new Testament; for everything was 
not immediately committed to writing. Meanwhile, however, the 
principal heads of the doctrine of the gospel were explained to all, 
and set forth in that language which they understood; and then 
all necessary matters were committed to writing. 

Secondly, I confess the apostles and evangelists did not write 
the gospel in as many various languages as they preached it in, by 
word of mouth; for that would have been an infinite labour : it was 
enough that they left this doctrine of the gospel written in one 


^ 5, , 
[! Ovre ai ev Teppaviats iSpupevat exkAnoiat ... .... ovre ev rais “IBnpias, 
^ , 5 4 
ovre ev KeXrois, oÜre Kata Tas avarodds, ore év Alyimr@, ovre év AtBin.— 


p. 52, B.] 


xiv.] | QUESTION THE SECOND. 217 


language, from which it might easily be drawn and derived into all 
other tongues. 

Thirdly, they wrote in that language which was the most 
common, and understood by the greatest number of people, and out 
of which the seriptures might with most facility be rendered and 
translated into other tongues,—that is, in the Greek; which, although 
it was not the mother tongue and native language of all, yet was to 
most by no means an unknown tongue. For all those nations, whom 
Irenzus enumerates in that book, either spoke or understood Greek. 
The Oriental churehes were composed of Greeks; and that the 
Egyptians understood Greek, is manifest from their bishops and 
doctors, Origen, Alexander, Athanasius, Theophilus, Cyril, who 
were Alexandrians, and published all their works in Greek. —Epi- 
phanius had his see in Cyprus, and delivered his instructions to his 
people in Greek. At Jerusalem Cyril and others imparted the 
gospel to their flock in Greek, and the Catechetical Discourses of 
Cyril written in Greek are still extant. In Gaul, Ireneus himself 
wrote his books in Greek; which shews that the Greek language 
was not unknown to the Lyonnese and Gauls. In Italy too Greek 
was understood, and therefore Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans 
in that language: for he would not have written it in Greek, if 
those to whom he wrote could not have understood it. And Irenzeus, 
cited by Eusebius, Lib. v. c. 24, testifies that Anicetus the bishop 
of Rome gave Polycarp liberty “to administer the eucharist in his 
church?;" which he would not have done, if the Romans could not 
understand Polycarp who was a Grecian. But, however the case 
may have been, there were persons who could readily interpret, and 
the scriptures were immediately translated into almost all languages, 
into Latin, at least, by many hands, since Augustine, as we have 
already heard, writes, that, in his time there were innumerable 
Latin versions. And although a knowledge of Greek was not so 
common in Africa, yet they had versions of their own, as we learn 


[2 kai é 7 €KKA , , 5 Avi A yyvapt la 5 TloAv- 
UL €» T €KK 701a Trapexapraev oO vuiKnTOS TV EUX p O'TL.QV TO OAU 


Kapr@ kar évrpon?v OgXovóri.—H. E. Lib. v. c. 24. (Tom. m. p. 128. ed. 
Heinich. Lipsize, 1828.) Valesius understands these words in the same sense 
as Whitaker. But Le Moyne, Prolegom. in Var. S. p. 28, and Heinichen in 
loc. contend, that Irenzeus only meant to say that Anicetus gave the Eucharist 
to Polycarp. However the word zapexóproe seems in favour of Whitaker's 
construction. Lowth compares Constitut. Apostol. 1r. 58, émwrpéyyeis 0 avro 
(that is, a foreign bishop visiting another bishop’s see) kai rjv eixapiaTíav 
ávoica.. | 


218 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


from Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine, within 400, or 300, or 200, 
years after Christ. 

But Bellarmine objects, that Peter wrote to the Jews in Greek, 
and that James did the same ; and John, in like manner, his Epistle 
to the Parthians, as Augustine tells us!, Quest. Evangel. 1. rr. qusest. 
39, and Hyginus in Epist. 1., and Pope John II. in his Epistle to 
Valerius: and yet Greek was the mother tongue, neither of the Jews 
nor of the Parthians. 

I answer, in the first place, that I cannot see what this is meant 
to prove, unless it be that the apostles deliberately wrote to some 
persons what they could not possibly understand; which is a course 
very abhorrent from the apostles' real purpose. 

Secondly, the Jews in their dispersion had learned the Greek 
language, which was then the language most commonly used by all 
men, sufficiently to understand the epistles which they received 
written in Greek from the apostles. And the apostles knew that 
those letters would be still more profitable to others than to the 
Jews, and therefore wrote them not in the Jewish but in the Greek 
language. 

Thirdly, I do not think that John wrote his Epistle to the 
Parthians. Whence Augustine derived this account, is uncertain?, 
One might just as well pretend that he wrote to the Indians as to 
the Parthians. But suppose he did write to these latter,—still the 
Parthians do not seem to have been wholly unacquainted with Greek, 
since Plutarch, in his life of Crassus, tells us that the slaughtered 
Crassus was mocked by the Parthians in Greek verses?. 


[1 Secundum sententiam hanc etiam illud dictum est a Johanne in Epis- 
tola ad Parthos: ‘ Dilectissimi, nune filii Dei sumus,’ &c.—Opp. T. 11. p. 2.] 

[2 * How Augustine and some Latins call this Epistle ad Parthos, we may 
explain in the following manner. The Second Epistle of John was called by 
the ancients Epistola ad Virgines, and consequently in Greek, zpos zapévovs. 
Clemens expresses himself thus in the Adumbrations: Secunda Johannis 
Epistola, que ad Virgines scripta, est, simplicissima est. —'T'om. 11. Op. Clem. 
Alex. p. 10. 11. edit. Venet. We find in Greek MSS. the subscription mpos 
zápÜovs, in the second Epistle; whence Whiston’s conjecture in the * Com- 
mentary on the three catholic Epistles of St John,” London, 1719, p. 6, that 
mapOouvs was an abbreviation of sapÓévovs, is confirmed.”—Hug. Introd. to 
N. T. Waits transl. Vol. 1t. p. 255. Dr Wait, in a note, gives =rpw@para as 
the proper Greek title of the Adumbrations, but this is a mistake. The 
book meant is the ‘Yrotruréceis, from which these Latin collections were 
made by Cassiodorus.] 

[? dSouévev dé rà» éde£üs dpotBaiwy mpos Tov xopóv, 


XIV. | | QUESTION THE SECOND. 219 


But to all objections of this sort one answer is sufficient, —that 
the apostles chose to use one language for writing, which was the 
best known of all, in order that what they wrote might with the 
greater facility be understood by all; which design of theirs is most 
plainly repugnant to the theory of the papists. And although all 
might not understand that language, yet the apostolic scripture 
might with the utmost ease and convenience be translated out of it, 
and transmitted to the tongues of other nations and countries. Nor 
was it to be expected that the apostles should write to each people 
in the mother tongue of every several region. 

The third argument is drawn from the use of the universal 
church; and the conclusion is inferred thus: that which the universal 
church hath held and observed is right: now, the universal church 
hath ever confined itself to these three languages, Hebrew, Greek, 
and Latin, in the common and public use of the scriptures; there- 
fore no other versions are necessary. He proves the major by the 
testimony of Augustine, Epist. 118', where he says that it isa piece of 
the wildest insolence to dispute against that which is practised by the 
universal church. And the same father, in his fourth book of Baptism 
against the Donatists, lays it down, that whatever is practised in the 
universal church, if its beginning cannot be assigned, should be be- 
lieved to descend from apostolic tradition, and to have been always 
as it is now. To the same purpose he adduces also the testimony of 
Leo from his second discourse De Jejunio Pentecostes. He subjoins 
that now, wherever catholics are, use is made only of the Greek 
and Latin languages in the public reading of the scriptures, and 
_ that the commencement of this custom cannot be assigned. 

I answer, in the first place, that this is not the proper time for 
disputing concerning ecclesiastical traditions and customs. We shall, 
if the Lord permit, handle that whole qnestion hereafter in its ap- 
propriate place. | 

Secondly, we should consider, not so much what hath been done 
or observed in the Church, as what ought to have been done and 
observed. For it does not follow, if the publie use of the Latin 


tis epdvevcey ; 
€uov TO yépas. 
Plut. Opp. T. 1. 565, a. Francof. 1620. 
The lines in which Crassus was so barbarously ridiculed were taken from the 
Bacchee of Euripides, and Plutarch tells us that both Hyrodes and Artavasdes 
were familiar with the Greek literature. ] 
[1 Ep. 54. p. 164. Opp. T. rr. Bassan. 1797.] 


220 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. TOH. 


tongue exclusively hath obtained in Italy, Spain, France, Germany, 
and the rest of these nations, that therefore such a practice is in 
no way open to reprehension; but what we must look to is, whe- 
ther these churches have done right in publicly reading the scrip- 
tures in an unknown tongue. And if the church have forbidden the 
scriptures to be read in any tongue but the Latin, we must not 
therefore think that the church hath committed no error in such 
an inhibition. 

Thirdly, that is altogether false which he asserts of this having 
been the unbroken custom and tradition of the universal church, 
as shall presently appear. Wherefore these opinions of Augustine 
and Leo are irrelevant to the present subject, and we seem able 
to concede that whatever the universal church hath always held 
is apostolic: but nothing which can justly claim that character is 
popish. 

The whole force of this argument depends upon the proof of the 
assumption; for which many things are adduced, which we must 
discuss severally. Nor must you think that time is spent in vain 
upon these; since they are necessary for the refutation of our ad- 
versaries. 

Now, first, Augustine is said to affirm, Doctr. Christ. Lib. rr. 
c. ll, that the scripture was wont to to be read in the church 
only in three languages, the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. But, if 
you will consult the place itself, you will perceive that nothing of 
the kind is said by Augustine. What Augustine says is!, that 
to persons whose language is the Latin, the knowledge of two 
other tongues is needful, namely, of the Hebrew and the Greek: 
he subjoins as the reason, **in order that they may be able to recur 
to the previous exemplars,”—that is, the originals. Does it follow 
that, because the Latins ought to procure for themselves some 
knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek tongues in order that they 
may the better understand the sense of scripture, therefore the 
scriptures were not customarily read in any but these three lan- 
guages? For it is to the Latins that Augustine delivers these pre- 
cepts: he says expressly, * men of the Latin language, whom we 
have now undertaken to instruct.” Hence nothing can be concluded 
against us, but something may be concluded against them. For, if 


[! Et Latinee quidem linguze homines, quos nune instruendos suscepimus, 
duabus aliis ad scripturarum divinarum cognitionem opus habent, Hebrea 
scilicet et Greeca, ut ad exemplaria preecedentia recurratur, si quam dubi- 
tationem attulerit Latinorum interpretum infinita varietas. ] 


XIV. | | QUESTION THE SECOND. 221 


the Latins ought to learn the Hebrew and Greek languages, to 
enable them to understand the scriptures aright, and to square 
their versions by the rule of the originals; it follows that more 
deference should be given to the Hebrew and Greek editions than 
to the Latin, and consequently, that the Latin is not, as they would 
have it, authentic. 

As to the statement which the Jesuit subjoins, that no ancient 
author hath mentioned any other version, I am amazed that he 
should have brought himself to make such an assertion. For 
Jerome, whom they make the author of the Latin Vulgate, trans- 
lated the scriptures into the Dalmatian, which was his mother 
tongue?, This is so certain that Hosius, in his book de Sacro Ver- 
nacule Legendo, writes thus: “It is undoubted that Jerome 
translated the sacred books into Dalmatian?." And in the same 
book he praises the Dalmatian language, and declares it to be 
very famous. So Alphonsus de Castro, Lib. r c. 18; ** We con- 
fess that the sacred books were formerly translated into the vulgar 
tongue*;" and he cites Erasmus, who writes that Jerome translated 
the scriptures into the Dalmatian language. Harding, Art. ur. 
sect. 385, writes that the Armenians, Russians, Ethiopians, Dalma- 
tians and Muscovites read the scriptures in their own vernacular 
tongues.  Eckius makes the same confession, in his Enchiridion 
de Missis Latine Dicendis®. Cornelius Agrippa, in his book of the 
Vanity of the Sciences (if that author deserve any credit), says 
that it was decreed by the council of Nice, that no Christian should 
be without a bible in his house’. Socrates too testifies, that Ulphi- 
lus, a bishop of the Goths, who was present at the council of Nice, 
translated the scriptures into the Gothic language, in order that the 
people might learn them. His words are, Lib. 1v. c. 38°: ** Having 


[? This is now universally allowed to be a mistake. It is exposed by 
Hody, Lib. m1. pars m1. c. 2. $ 8. p. 362.] 

[? Dalmatica lingua sacros libros Hieronymum vertisse constat.—Opp. 
Col. 1584. T. 1. p. 664.] 

[* Fatemur ... olim sacros libros in linguam vulgarem fuisse translatos. 
—Col. 1539. fol. 28. 2.] 

[ See Jewel, Controversy with Harding, Vol. r. Parker Soc. edit. p. 
334.] 

[9 I cannot find this admission in c. 34. of the Enchiridion, l. c. 1534.] 

[7 Et Nicena Synodus decretis suis cavit ne quis e numero Christianorum 
saeris Bibliorum libris careret.— cap. 100. ad fin.] 

[8 ras Geias ypadas eis rv TorOav peraBadov, rods BapBapous pavOdvew 
rà Ocia Aóyia Tapeokevacev.—p. 206. ed. Vales. Par. 1686.] 


222 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


translated the divine scriptures into the Gothic language, he pre- 
pared the barbarians to learn the oracles of God." And Sixtus 
Senensis, Bibliothec. Lib. vir, says that Chrysostom translated 
the scriptures into the Armenian language’. Jerome, too, in his 
Epitaph upon Paula, affirms that the Psalms were chanted by 
the Christians of Palestine at Paula's? funeral, in the Hebrew, 
Greek, Latin and Syriae, tongues; and that not only for three 
days, whilst she was a-burying beneath the church, beside the 
Lord's cave, but during the whole week. It is manifest, therefore, 
that the Psalms were translated into Syriac. Stapleton, however, 
in his English book against bishop Jewel, of sacred memory, Art. 
II, says that these were extraordinary hymns, and not the Psalms 
of David; which figment rests upon no proof, and offends even 
other papists: for Jerome plainly speaks of the Psalms, when he 
says, “they chanted them out in order.” Our Jesuit, therefore, 
pronounces the place corrupt; pretending that some of the books 
do not exhibit the word ‘ Hebreo,” and that the Syriae is here 
used for the Hebrew. 

Thus do they turn themselves in every direction to escape that 
light. This was the ingenious conjecture of Marianus Victorius, 
who hath done noble service in corrupting Jerome. But, in the 
first place, Erasmus, who laboured quite as diligently, and far more 
faithfully than Victorius, as editor of Jerome, and who had seen as 
many copies as he, could discover nothing of the kind in that 
place. Furthermore, if the Syriac language here meant the 
Hebrew, it ought certainly to have been enumerated in the first 
place: for when authors, and especially Jerome, enumerate lan- 
guages, the Hebrew is usually allowed the first place. 

But to proceed. In our own histories we read that the scrip- 
tures were translated into the British language, by order of king 
Athelstan; nine hundred years ago. And John of Trevisa writes, 
that our countryman Dede translated the gospel of John into 
English, Lib. v. c. 24; and that the Psalms were translated by 
order of Alfred, Lib. vr. c. 1. And Bede tells us, Lib. 1. ce. 1, 
that, in his time, the scriptures were read in five British languages. 
His words in that passage are as follows: ‘“ This island at present, 
according to the number of the books wherein the divine law was 


[! See Hug. Introd. to N. T. $. 86.] 

[2 Tota ad funus ejus Palestinarum urbium turba convenit. . . . Hebrzeo, 
Greco, Latino, Syroque sermone, Psalmi in ordine personabant.—Epist. 
xxxvi. IT. 1v. part. 11. 687, 8.] 


XIV. | QUESTION THE SECOND. 223 


written, searches and confesses one and the same knowledge of the 
sublimest truth and truest sublimity in the languages of five people, 
that is, of the English, the Britons, the Scots, the Picts, and the 
Latins; which by meditation of the scripture hath become common 
to all.” It is therefore manifest, that the statement that there are 
no vernacular version mentioned by any ancient author is emi- 
nently and most plainly false. 

But the Jesuit goes on to mention particular churches; and 
first he discourses thus concerning the African church. All the 
Africans did not understand Latin. But the scriptures were in 
Africa read only in Latin. Now, that the Latin was not the vulgar 
tongue of all the Carthaginians, we have the testimony of Augustine, 
in the beginning of his Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans; who 
affirms that some of the Carthaginians understood both Latin and 
Punic, some Punic only, and that almost all the rustics were of this 
latter class. Also, Serm. 35. de Verbis Domini, he says that the 
Punic language is a-kin to the Hebrew*. And Jerome, in the 
Preface to his Second book upon the Epistle to the Galatians®, 
writes that the language of the Africans is the same as the Phoeni- 
cian, with only a little alteration. 

I answer, in the first place: No one says that the Punic lan- 
guage was the same as the Latin. The contrary may be seen even 
from the Penulus of Plautus?; nor did any one ever entertain a 
doubt upon that subject. However it is quite uncertain whether 
there were any Punie version of the scriptures. How will our 
adversaries prove that there was none, by the testimony of Augus- 
tine or of any other writer? Augustine no where denies it; and 
although no monuments of such a thing be now extant, yet it does 
not follow thence that there was no version. For in old times the 
scriptures were translated into our own tongue, and yet scarcely any 
traces of those versions are now apparent. There were certainly 
pious bishops in all those parts of Africa, Numidia, Mauritania, who 
cherished a tender solicitude for the salvation of their people. It 


[3 H»c insula in presenti, juxta numerum librorum, quibus lex divina 
scripta est, quinque gentium linguis unam eandemque summe veritatis et 
ver: sublimitatis scientiam scrutatur et confitetur, Anglorum videlicet, Brito- 
num, Scotorum, Pictorum et Latinorum, qu: meditatione scripturarum omni- 
bus est facta communis.—Opp. T. r. p. 9. ed. Stevens. Lond. 1841.] 

[* Serm. exiii. 2. Tom. v. col. 568. Opp. Par. 1679. 1700.] 


[> Quum et Afri Phoenicum linguam non nulla ex parte mutayerint.— 
T. Iv. 255, 6.] 


[6 Plauti Pzenulus. V. 1. &c.] 


224 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


seems incredible that there should have been no one found amongst 
them to do that for the Carthaginians, which we read that Jerome 
did for the Dalmatians,—translate the scriptures into the language 
of the people. 

Secondly, in the more frequented and civilized places, and con- 
siderable cities, the Africans understood Latin, and could speak it; 
so that we are not to wonder that the scriptures were read in Latin 
at Carthage, as appears from Cyprian; at Milevi, as we find from 
Optatus; at Hippo, as appears from Augustine. For these fathers 
read and expounded the scriptures in Latin in their churches: nor 
would they have used the Latin tongue in their homilies and 
harangues, if the people could not have understood that language. 
Augustine upon Psalm xvii. hath these words: * Most dearly be- 
loved, that which we have sung with harmonious voice, we ought 
also to know and hold in an unclouded breast!" In his book de 
Catechiz. Rudibus, cap. 9?, he warns the people not to ridicule their 
pastors, if they shall happen to express themselves ungrammatically 
in their prayers and sermons. Whence it is plain that some of the 
common people were often better skilled in Latin than the ministers 
themselves. In his Retractations, Lib. 1. c. 20, he says that he had 
composed a certain Psalm in Latin letters against the Donatists, 
with the express object that it should reach the knowledge of the 
very lowest of the people, the unskilful and illiterate?. In his 
Serm. 24, de Verbis Apost. he speaks thus: “The Punic proverb is 
well known, which I will tell you in Latin, because all of you do not 
understand Punic‘.” Therefore the common people understood Latin 
better than Punic. Upon Psalm l.: * We all know,” says he, **that 
in Latin one cannot say sanguines, or sanguina, but sanguinem5." 
And when he addressed the people, he was much more careful to be 
intelligible, than to express himself with purity. So on Psalm exx viii: 


[1 Carissimi, quod consona voce cantavimus, sereno etiam corde nosse et 
tenere [ae videre] debemus.—T. Iv. 81, 2.] 


[2 $ 13. Tom. vr. col. 272.] 

[3 Tom. 1. col. 31. Volens etiam causam Donatistarum ad ipsius humil- 
limi vulgi et omnino imperitorum atque idiotarum notitiam pervenire. ... 
psalmum, qui eis cantaretur, per Latinas literas feci.] 

(4 Proverbium notum est Punicum: quod quidem Latine vobis dicam, 
quia Punice non omnes nostis.—T. v. 804. (Serm. clxvii. 4.)] 

[5 Omnes novimus Latine non dici sanguines nec sanguina, sed sanguinem. 
ils V. 4792.1 

[6 Ego dicam ossum: sic enim potius loquamur: melius est ut nos repre- 
hendant grammatici, quam non intelligant populi.—T. 1v. col. 1545.] 


xiv.] | QUESTION THE SECOND. 225 


“JT will say ossum : for so we should rather speak. It is better 
that the grammarians should blame, than that the people should 
not understand us.” And upon John, Tract. 7, ** Lend me your 
kind attention. It is dolus, not dolor. I mention this because 
many brethren, who are not very skilful in the Latin tongue, are in 
the habit of using such phrases as, Dolus illum torquet, when they 
mean what is denoted by Dolor’.” And Augustine, Confess. Lib. 1. 
c. 14, says that he learned the Latin language, “amidst the 
caresses of the nursery, the jokes of those that laughed, and the 
smiles of those that played with him*.” Now Augustine was born 
and bred at Tagasta, in Africa, as appears from the Confessions, 
Lib. rv. c. 7. From these circumstances it is clear that the people 
of Africa, especially in the cities and more populous places, not only 
understood Latin, but could speak it too, although perhaps not 
always with that purity which an exact Latinity would have re- 
quired. 

The Jesuit goes on to enumerate the Spanish, English, French, 
German, and Italian churches; with respect to which it is not 
necessary that I should answer him upon each case severally. I 
am aware that, in these later times, the people were plunged in the 
densest darkness, and that even in the centre of Italy and Rome 
every thing was read in a foreign language. But before this igno- 
rance and antichristian tyranny, in the older and purer times of 
the church, I affirm that the scriptures were never, in any country, 
read publicly to the people in any other language but that which 
the people understood. Our adversary will never be able to prove 
the contrary. The Latin tongue certainly of old prevailed widely 
in the western part of the world, so that the scriptures may have 
been read in Latin in those countries which Bellarmine mentions, 
and yet have been understood by the people. Augustine tells us, 
in his City of God, Lib. xix. c. 7, “Care was taken that the im- 
perial city should impose not only her yoke, but her language also, 
upon the vanquished nations®.” Plutarch, in his Platonic Questions! 

[^ Intendat caritas vestra; dolus, non dolor est. Hoc propterea dico quia 
multi fratres imperitiores Latinitatis loquuntur sic ut dicant, Dolus illum tor- 
quet, pro eo quod est Dolor.—T. ri. P. rr. 349.] 


[8 Inter blandimenta nutricum, et joca arridentium, et letitias alluden- 
tium.] 

[? Data opera est ut civitas imperiosa non solum jugum, verum etiam 
linguam suam, domitis gentibus imponeret.] 

[19 ws doxet pov mepi Popaíov. Aéyew, àv pev Aóyo viv dpod rt mávres dv- 
Opwrot xpadvra.—p. 1010. c. T. rr. Opp. Francofurt. 1620.] 
15 


[ WHITAKER. ] 


226 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


affirms that almost all men use the Latin language. And Strabo 
says this expressly of the Gauls and Spaniards. Besides, there 
may have been versions of the scriptures in those churches, which 
are unknown, and unheard of, by us. It is quite certain that the 
reading of the scriptures was everywhere understood in those 
churches. Isidore, in his book De Offic. Eccles. c. 10, writes thus 
of the Spanish and all other churches: “It behoves that when the 
Psalms are sung, all should sing; and when the prayers are said, 
they should be said by all; and that when the lesson is read, silence 
should be kept that it may be heard equally by all!" Where the 
language is a strange one, men can neither sing together, nor pray 
together, nor hear anything together: for not to understand what 
another reads or says, comes to the same thing as not to hear it. 
It is therefore sufficiently evident from Isidore, that in Spain the 
Latin language was known to those who used it in the reading of 
the scriptures. And this is likewise manifest of Gaul. For Sulpi- 
tius Severus, in his Life of Martin, informs us, that, when the 
people had assembled to choose Martin bishop, upon the reader not 
appearing, one of the by-standers seized the book, and read the 
eighth Psalm; at the reading of which a general shout was raised 
by the people, and the opposite party were reduced to silence’, 
From this testimony we collect that the people understood very well 
what was read to them ; for otherwise no occasion would have been 
afforded them of raising this acclamation. Whence it follows, either 
that this people were not unacquainted with the Latin tongue, or 
that there was then extant some vernacular version of the scripture. 
Now then we have sufficiently answered this argument; but there 
will be something to be answered again in the other part upon this 
subject. | 

The fourth argument is drawn from the reason of the thing 
itself. It is requisite that the public use of scripture should be in 
some language most common to all men, for the sake of preserving 
the unity of the church, But at present there is no language 
more common than the Latin. He proves the major by the con- 
sideration that otherwise the communion between churches would be 
destroyed, and it would be impossible that general councils should 
be celebrated ; for all the fathers have not the gift of tongues. 


[' Oportet ut quando psallitur, ab omnibus psallatur: et cum oratur, ut 
oretur ab omnibus; quando lectio legitur, ut facto silentio seque audiatur a 
eunctis.—Isid. Opp. Col. Agripp. 1617, p. 393.] 

[2 Sulpitii Severi. Opp. Amstel. 1665, p. 452.] 


xiv.] | QUESTION THE SECOND. 227 


I answer: All the parts of this argument are weak. For, in 
the first place, it is false that no language is more common than 
the Latin, even in the West. In truth there is hardly any less 
common. For at the present day none understand Latin, but those 
- who have learned it from a master. Formerly, indeed, this was 
the native and common language of many people; but now, in the 
greatest multitude that can be collected, how few will you find that 
are acquainted with Latin! 

Secondly, if, as Bellarmine himself confesses, the very reason 
why the apostles at first wrote almost everything in Greek, was 
because that language was the most common of all, and the 
scriptures were afterwards translated into Latin, because afterwards 
the Latin became more common; it follows that now also the 
scriptures should be rendered into other languages which are now 
more common than either Latin or Greek. Such are now the 
Dalmatian, Italian, French, German, Polish. ‘or these are the 
mother-tongues of great nations; whereas the Latin is the mother- 
tongue of no nation whatever. At this day the Latin is a stranger 
in Latium itself, is the vernacular language of no people, but 
peculiar to learned men and those who have attended the lessons 
of some master in the schools. 

Thirdly, his pretence that the inter-communion of churches 
would be destroyed, and the celebration of general councils ren- 
dered impossible, unless the scriptures were everywhere read in 
some one most common language, is absurd and repugnant to all 
reason and experience. For formerly, when the scriptures were 
read in Hebrew by the Hebrews, in Greek by the Grecians, and 
in Latin by the Latins, there was nevertheless the greatest friend- 
ship amongst Christians and the closest union in the church, nor 
was there any impediment to the holding of general councils. In 
the Nicene council there were Greek and Latin fathers, who all, 
though they did not use one and the same language, yet defended 
the same faith with the most zealous unanimity. If it be a thing 
so conducive to the conservation of the church’s unity, that the 
scriptures should everywhere be read in the same language, why 
were not measures taken to insureit from the beginning? Or why 
ought the Latin language to be deemed fitter for such a purpose than 
any other? These dreams are only meet subjects for laughter ; 
and therefore this argument hath been omitted by the editor of the 
epitome. 

The fifth argument. If there be no cause why the scriptures 

15—2 


228 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


should be translated vernacularly, then they ought not to be trans- 
lated. But there is no cause why they should be translated ; 
which is thus proved. If they are translated in order that the 
people may understand them, this is no good cause, since the 
people eannot understand them even when they are translated. 
For the people would not understand the prophets and Psalms, 
and other pieces which are read in the churches, even if they 
were read in the vernacular language. For these things even the 
learned do not understand, unless they read and hear expositors. 

I answer, in the first place, by confessing that all things are 
not immediately understood upon the reading even by the learned, 
especially in the prophets and the Psalms. For to enable us to 
understand the scriptures, there is need not only of reading, but 
of study, meditation and prayer.  Dut if, for this reason, the 
people ought not to read the scriptures in their own tongue, then 
even the learned ought not to be permitted to read them. How- 
ever there are many things which can be understood, though not 
all: and assuredly, all things which are necessary to salvation are 
plainly delivered in scripture, so as that they can be easily under- 
stood by any one if he wil. And men would know more than 
they do, if they would read and hear the scriptures with that 
attention which they ought to bestow. For the reason why most 
men understand so little, and gain such slender advantage from the 
reading of the scriptures, is to be found in their own negligence, 
because they neither give a religious attention to the perusal of 
them, nor approach it with the proper dispositions. 

Secondly, although the whole sense be not immediately per- 
ceived, yet the words are understood when they are recited in the 
mother-tongue ; and this greatly conduces towards gaining a 
knowledge of the sense. The eunuch, Acts vii, was reading the 
prophet Isaiah, which yet he did not thoroughly understand. 
Nevertheless, he was to be praised for reading it, and hath de- 
servedly been praised by many of the fathers. He understood the 
words indeed, but knew not that the prophet spoke of Christ, and 
was ignorant of the true sense. But these men do not allow the 
people to understand even so much as the words. However, as 
that reading of the scripture was useful to the eunuch, so it will be 
useful to the people to be diligent in reading the scriptures, so as 
that, from understanding the words, they may come to understand 
the sense of the whole. For the first step is to know the words, 
the second to perceive the drift of the discourse. But the papists 


xiv.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 229 


are so far from wishing the people to comprehend the sense of 
seripture, that they prevent them from even reading the words. 
The sixth argument. It is dangerous for the people to read 
the scriptures; since they would not derive benefit from the 
scriptures, but injury. All heresies have sprung from misunder- 
standing of scripture, as Hilary observes at the end of his book 
de synodis'; and Luther calls the scriptures the book of heretics: 
and this is further proved by experience. Hence have sprung the 
heresies of the Anthropomorphites, the Adamites?, and of David 
George’, who understood no language but his mother-tongue. If 
the people were to hear the Song of songs read, the adultery of 
David, the incest of Tamar, the story of Leah and Rachel, the 
falsehoods of Judith, they would either despise the holy patriarchs, 
or argue that similar things were lawful to themselves, or believe 
these to be false. Bellarmine further subjoins, that he heard from 
a credible witness, that once when in England the twenty-fifth 
chapter of Ecclesiasticus was being read in the vulgar tongue, 
wherein many things are spoken of the wickedness of women, a 
certain woman rose up and exclaimed: “Is this the word of God?— 
nay, rather it is the word of the devil" And the Rhemists, in 
their note upon 1 Cor. xiv., say that the translation of holy offices 
often breeds manifold perils and contempt in the vulgar sort, 
leading them to suppose that God is the author of sin, when they 
read, ** Lead us not into temptation :" although they seem here to 
have forgotten what they have observed elsewhere, that the Lord's 
prayer should be allowed in the vernacular language. The censors 
of Cologne, too, in their book against Monhemius, p. 20, tell us, 
* No heresy was ever found which did not make use of scripture ; 


[' The reference meant is most probably ad Constant. August. 1. 9. Sed 
memento tamen neminem hereticorum esse qui se nune non secundum 
scripturas predicare ea, quibus blasphemat, mentiatur.... omnes scrip- 
turas sine scripture sensu loquuntur.—Col. 1230. Hilarii Opp. Paris. 1693.) 

[? There was an ancient sect of Adamites, said by Theodoret (Heer. Fab. 
p. 197) to have been founded by Prodieus, (whose tenets are described by 
Clemens Alex. Strom. 1. p. 304. B. and $ 3. pp. 438, 439,) and of which the 
fullest account is given by Epiphanius, (Heres. 52,) but only upon hearsay, 
(p. 458, c.) But the persons meant by Bellarmine were probably the Picards, 
exterminated by Zisca in the 15th century, and the Anabaptists of Amster- 
dam in the 16th.—See Bayle’s Dict. Art. Prcarp, and Beausobre’s Disserta- 
tion at the end of L'Enfant's History of the Hussites, Amsterd. 1731.] 

[3 Founder of the Davidists. He died 1556.—See Mosheim, Cent. 16. 
sect. 3. part. tt. c. 3. $ 24.] 


230. THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. —— [ cH. 
yea, to speak still more boldly, which did not take its occasion 
from scripture!” 

I answer, in the first place: All these suggestions are the product 
of human ingenuity, and impeach the divine wisdom. For if the 
reading of these things were so dangerous, why did the Lord will 
that they should be written, and that in the language which the 
whole church understood, and afterwards should be translated into 
the Greek and Latin tongues, which latter our adversary himself 
affirms to be the most common of all? These things ought rather to 
have been buried than consigned to writing, if they were so fraught 
with danger to piety and good morals. 

Secondly, there is nothing which the reading of these histories 
is less fitted to produce than either contempt for the saints, or any 
kind of petulance and impiety. For though in those histories the 
adultery of David is narrated, yet so is also, in the same narratives, 
the penitence of David and his punishment described; the knowledge 
whereof is useful to the church and all the faithful. For, in the 
first place, hence we learn that no one can sin with impunity; but 
that every one, if he sin, must undergo the penalty of sin, either in 
the shape of chastisement, as David, or in that of vengeance, as others. 
We learn farther, that one must not despair though he may have 
sinned; but that, however heinous the sin into which he may have 
fallen, there is hope that God will be merciful for Christ’s sake, if 
the sinner heartily repent. Lastly, that those holy and excellent 
men were not saved by their own virtues, but by the merits of Christ, 
and consequently that we ought not to think of them more mag- 
nificently than is proper; as indeed there is less danger of our 
attributing too little to them than too much: on which account the 
Holy Spirit did not choose to pass in silence these actions, which 
were not small delinquencies, but most enormous crimes. 

Thirdly, no scandal springs truly and legitimately from scripture. 
In Rom. xv. 4, the apostle declares why the scriptures were pub- 
lished, and what end they regard ; not to lead men into false opinions, 
but “they are written for our learning, that we through patience 
and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." In Psalm cxix. 9, 
David asks, *Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way ?” 
He answers, not by avoiding or remaining ignorant of the scriptures, 
but, “by taking heed to them.” Even young men, therefore, whose 
age is especially prone to lust, may nevertheless be usefully engaged 


[! Nulla unquam reperta est heresis, quee non scripturis fuerit usa: imo 
ut audentius dicamus, quee non ex scripturis occasionem acceperit. Colon.1582.] 


XIV. | | QUESTION THE SECOND. 29L 


in the study of the scriptures. In Psalm xii. 7, he says that “the 
words of the Lord” are ‘pure words:" but these men are afraid, 
lest, as the apostle, 1 Cor. xv. 33, reminds us that good manners are 
corrupted by evil communication, so men should be made worse 
and more estranged from piety by the perusal of the scriptures. 
Meanwhile, they who remove the scriptures from the eyes of men, 
as pestilent to all pious behaviour, permit all young men to read 
Propertius, Martial, Ovid, Plautus, Terence, and forbid not the most 
shameful comedies and the foulest shews. What can be conceived 
more impious and antichristian than such conduct ? 

Fourthly, as to his assertion that heresies spring from the scrip- 
ture not being understood, I confess its truth. But, as all heresies 
are wont to spring from not understanding or ill understanding 
scripture, so all heresies are refuted by the scriptures well and 
fittingly understood and expounded. Hence the Anthropomorphites, 
hence the Adamites, hence all the other heretics are convicted of 
error. Now it is much better that the scriptures should be read, 
and that, from the scriptures read and understood, heresies should 
be condemned and overthrown, than that they should not be read 
at all; and that by such means the rise of heresies should be pre- 
vented. For doubtless many more persons perish through ignorance 
of scripture, than through heresy; and it is from ignorance of 
scripture, and not from the reading of it, that heresies themselves 
arise. | 

Fifthly, whether Luther ever really said that “scripture is the 
book of the hereties," is neither very certain nor very important. 
Indeed they are wont to abuse the scriptures, but still may always 
be convicted and refuted by the same. 

Sixthly, the story which he subjoins, as heard from some 
Englishman, about a certain woman, who, when that chapter of 
Ecclesiasticus? was read in England, rose up in a rage and spoke 
with little modesty of that scripture, I leave entirely on the credit 
of the good man from whom Bellarmine heard it. But what if a 
few persons sometimes abuse the scriptures; does it therefore follow 
that the scriptures are to be wholly taken away, and never read 
to the people? In this way of reasoning, even the learned 
should never read the scriptures, since many even very learned 
men abuse the scriptures, as is the case with almost all heretics. 


[2 It is to be observed that, in our present Calendar, Ecclus. xxv., which is 
the evening lesson for November 6, is ordered to be read only to ver. 13. No 
such rule however was made in King Edward's Prayer-book.] 


232 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ou. 


Besides, if the abuse of any thing were sufficient to set aside its use, 
we should abstain from food and from drink, and even forego the 
use of clothes, because many people abuse these things to gluttony, 
drunkenness and pride. This then is the most noted of all fallacies, 
putting that which is not the cause for the cause, and arguing from 
accidental circumstances. 

In the seventh place, the Jesuit reasons thus: if the scrip- 
tures should be read by the people in the vulgar tongue, then 
new versions should be made in every age, because languages are 
changed every age; which he proves from Horace’s Art of Poetry! 
and from experience. But this would be impossible, because there 
would be a lack of persons fit to make the versions; and, if it 
were possible, it would be absurd that the versions should be so 
often changed. Therefore the scriptures ought not to be read in 
the vernacular tongue. 

I answer, every part of this argument is ridiculous. For, in 
the first place, it is false that languages change every age; since 
the primary tongues, the Hebrew, Greek and Latin, have not 
undergone such frequent alterations. Secondly, there is never in 
Christian churches a lack of some sufficient interpreters, able to 
translate the scriptures and render their genuine meaning in the 
vulgar tongue. Thirdly, no inconvenience will follow if inter- 
pretations or versions of scripture, when they have become obsolete 
and ceased to be easily intelligible, be afterwards changed and 
corrected. I would assuredly have passed over this argument 
entirely, if I had not determined not to conceal or dissemble any 
arguments of our opponents. 

The Jesuit’s eighth argument is taken from the authority of 
the fathers. He brings forward the testimonies of two illustrious 
fathers, to whom we are bound to render the highest deference on 
account of their consummate and manifold erudition, Basil and 
Jerome. Basil then, as Theodoret relates, Hist. Lib. rv. cap. 19, 
when the prefect of the imperial kitchen was prating with into- 
lerable impudence and ignorance concerning the dogmas of theo- 
logy, answered him thus: “It is your business to mind your 
sauces, not to cook the divine oracles?.” 


[2 Ut silvee foliis pronos mutantur in annos, 
Prima cadunt: ita verborum vetus interit etas 
Et juvenum ritu florent modo nata, vigentque.—v. 60.] 
[2 maphy S€ tis Anpoobévns Kadobvpevos rv. Baciukàv mpopnbovpevos oor, 
bs TO Oi0ackdÀAe Ths olkovuévos empeprpdpwevos €BapBapicev, 6 0€ Óeios Baci- 


XIV. | QUESTION THE SECOND. 233 


I answer, This prefect of the imperial kitchen was by name 
Demosthenes, and troubled the holy father with exceeding in- 
solence and ignorance; for, being himself a stupid barbarian, he 
would yet, as Theodoret tells us, instruct the doctor of the whole 
world, tov duwacKxarov THs olkovuéevyns,—for so Basil was esteemed. 
The courtier imagined, it seems, that he, a person at once wholly 
unlearned and very foolish, could maintain a disputation upon the 
scriptures with Basil, a man of profound learning, most expert in 
scriptures, and a bishop of the church. This was the reason why 
Basil answered him so sharply, Dov éote rds Tcv Cwua@v kapvketas 
dpovti¢ev. And, indeed, those who are like this man ought to 
be treated in like manner, and rebuked with much severity : but 
what is this to the purpose? It 1s one thing to read the scriptures, 
and another thing to suppose ourselves to understand them when 
we do not. Basil did not blame the cook for having read the 
scriptures, but for having the conceit that he had obtained such 
distinguished knowledge as to be able to dispute with him con- 
cerning the scriptures, when he did not understand them. This 
arrogance of his Basil wished to crush, and to shut his impudent 
mouth with that answer, not to prevent him from reading the 
scriptures. All should be expected, when they read the scriptures, 
to read them with judgment, lest they be like this foolish De- 
mosthenes ; who, because he was altogether illiterate and possessed 
with heretical prejudices, seemed to Basil a person unworthy to 
discourse upon religious subjects. For so Basil addresses him: 
‘Thou canst not hear the divine doctrines, for thine ears are 
stuffed against them.” 

I come now to the testimony of Jerome cited by the Jesuit, 
which is contained in the epistle to Paulinus, and runs thus: 
“Physicians undertake the proper business of physicians, and 
workmen handle workmen’s tools.’ Skill in the scriptures is the 
only art which all claim for themselves. ‘Learned and unlearned, 
we all promiscuously write poems.’ This the garrulous crone, this 
the doting old man, this the wordy sophist, this all indiscriminately 
seize on, tear, teach before they learn. Some with importance on 
their brows, and weighing their pompous words, philosophize upon 
the sacred books amongst their female disciples. Others (O 
Aes petdiaoas, "EOeacdpeba, &pn, kai Aguoo8évgv dyypápparov: éretdy 8€ mAéov 
exeivos Ovoxepávas Areidnoe, Xóv eat, ey 6 uéyas Bacidews, Te trav (ouóv 
kapukeias dpovtifew: Soyparav yap Oeiay émaiew od dvvacat, BeBvopévas &xov 
Tas akoas.—p. 174, C. D. ed. Vales. Paris. 1673.] 


234 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. Lou. 


shame!) learn from women what they are to teach to men; and, 
as if this were not enough, by a certain facility, or rather au- 
dacity, of talk discourse to others what they do not understand 
themselves!" These are the words of Jerome: to which I answer, 
that Jerome's complaint is just; since those persons should not treat 
of scripture, who are ignorant and unskilful in the subject. But 
here it is to be observed, that Jerome does not blame the men and 
women of whom he speaks for reading the scriptures, but because, 
as soon as ever they had the slightest taste of scriptural knowledge, 
they supposed immediately that they understood every thing, that 
they could teach others, and could interpret the scriptures to others, 
when they did not understand them themselves; and because they 
rushed precipitately into the scriptures without that modesty which 
is to be preserved in the perusal of them. He blames, therefore, 
their impudence, unskilfulness, insolence and arrogance, but does 
not prevent them from reading the scriptures; yea, rather, he would 
have all to read the scriptures, provided they read with modesty 
and reverence. 

These are the arguments of the Jesuit; to which, I hope, we 
have returned an answer abundantly sufficient. There are others 
who handle this question, as Harding, Art. 15. Sect. 3, who dis- 
tributes this whole controversy under five heads. He proves that 
a vernacular translation of the scriptures is, first, unnecessary ; 
secondly, not fitting; thirdly, not useful; fourthly, unsafe; fifthly, 
heretical. But it is not worth while to answer his arguments 
also, and obviate the objections which he brings against vernacular 
versions of the bible; as well because they are absolutely the 
same with those alleged by the Jesuit, as also because they have 
been already most copiously and learnedly confuted by that dis- 
tinguished man, Doctor John Jewel, bishop of Sarum, whom they 
may read who desire to see more upon this matter. 


[! Quod medicorwm est promittunt medici, tractant fabrilia fabri. Sola 
Scripturarum ars est quam sibi omnes passim vindicant. Scribimus indocti 
doctique poemata passim. Hane garrula anus, hane delirus senex, hanc 
sophista verbosus, hane universi presumunt, lacerant, docent antequam dis- 
cant. Alii adducto supercilio, grandia verba trutinantes, inter mulierculas de 
sacris literis philosophantur. Alii discunt (proh pudor!) a feminis quod viros 
doceant: et ne parum hoc sit, quadam facilitate verborum, imo audacia, edis- 
serunt aliis quod ipsi non intelligunt.—T. Iv. p. 571.] 





xv. | QUESTION THE SECOND. 235 


CHAPTER XV. 
OUR REASONS FOR VERNACULAR VERSIONS OF THE SCRIPTURES. 


I come now to the defence of our own side, in which I have to 
prove that the scriptures are to be set forth before all Christians in 
their vernacular tongues, so as that every individual may be enabled 
to read them. 

Now my first argument shall be to this effect: that which is 
by God prescribed to all, all should do. But God hath commanded 
all to read the scriptures: therefore all are bound to read the 
scriptures. There can be no controversy about the major, unless 
some one doubt whether we are bound to obey God. The as- 
sumption however may perhaps be questioned. We must inquire, 
therefore, whether God hath prescribed this to all. And this may 
very easily be made to appear; for God hath chosen that his will 
should be written, that his word should be committed to writing, 
that his scriptures should be commended to men, and that in a 
language known not only to the learned, but to the vulgar also. 
What could have been his object in this, if it were not that all 
people should read the scriptures, and recognise the will and word 
of God? In Deut. xxxi. 11, 12, there is an express command of 
God concerning the reading of the scriptures before the whole 
people: ‘Thou shalt read the words of this law in the presence of 
all Israel, in their hearing, and to all the people collected together." 
And lest any of the people should peradventure suppose himself 
exempted by some special privilege, and discharged from the 
obligation of this divine command, Moses makes use of a distributive 
enumeration, naming expressly the women, the children, and the 
strangers, and subjoining even their posterity. But why does God 
wil his law to be read before the whole people? The reason is 
added, ** that they may hear, and may learn, and fear Jehovah and 
observe his precepts.” Now this is of perpetual obligation: therefore 
the reading of the seripture is always necessary. For if the end 
and proximate cause of any law be perpetual, the law itself is to be 
esteemed perpetual. But the reasons on account of which God 
willed the scriptures to be read are perpetual. "Therefore he wills 
them to be read to the people perpetually throughout all ages. 

In Deut. xvii. 19, 20, it is particularly enjoined upon the king 
that he should read the scriptures: and the same reasons are added 
as were given before, and also some peculiar to the king; as that, 


236 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


Jest his soul should be lifted up with pride, and he should despise 
his brethren, and depart from this precept, “to the right hand or to 
the left." In Deut. vi. 6, 7, 8, 9, this command is proposed to all 
Israel, and even urged vehemently upon them, that the words of 
the divine law should be graven upon their hearts; that they 
should tell them to their sons; that they should speak of them 
when they sat at home and when they walked by the way, when 
they lay down and when they rose up; that they should have 
them, as it were, bound upon their hands, and kept ever before 
their eyes; finally, that they should be inscribed upon the posts of 
their houses and upon their doors. From all which we understand 
that God would have his law most familiarly known to his people. 

In Jer. xxxvi. 6, 7, the prophet commands Baruch to read the 
book which he had written from Jeremiah's dictation, before the whole 
people; and the reason is subjoined, “if peradventure they may 
fall down, and make entreaty before Jehovah, and return each man 
from his evil way." And in the new Testament Christ, John v. 
39, bids men epevvav tas ypadas, “ search the scriptures.” In 
which place he addresses not only the persons of learning and 
erudition, that is, the Scribes and Pharisees, but also the unlearned 
people and the illiterate vulgar: for not the learned alone, but 
the unlearned also, seek and desire eternal life; yea, salvation and 
the kingdom of God pertains to the latter equally with the former 
class. Chrysostom observes upon that place, Hom. 40, that Christ 
exhorts the Jews in that passage not merely to a bare and simple 
reading of the scriptures, but sets them upon a very diligent 
investigation, since he bids them not to read, but to search the 
scriptures. John xx. 31, the Evangelist says: *' These things are 
written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of 
God; and that believing ye may have life through his name.” 
Now all desire life and salvation; all too desire faith, or, at least, 
ought to desire it. Thus then we reason from this passage: without 
faith there is no life: without the scriptures there is no faith: the 
scriptures therefore should be set forth before all men. Rom. xv. 
14, “ Whatsoever things were written were written for our learn- 
ing," says Paul. The Lord therefore willed us to be learned, and 
this is saving knowledge. He subjoins, ‘‘ that we, through patience 
and comfort of the scriptures, might have hope.” Those therefore 
who are without the scriptures are without patience, without 
comfort, without hope; for all these things are produced by the 
scriptures, 


xv.] | QUESTION THE SECOND. 237 


Our second argument stands thus: The people should not be 
deprived of those arms by which they are to be protected against 
Satan. Now the scriptures are such arms: therefore the scrip- 
tures should not be taken away from the people; for taken away 
they are, if the people be prevented from reading them. The 
major is self evident. The assumption is proved by the example 
of Christ himself, Matt. iv. For when Christ had to deal with 
Satan, and was engaged in a close encounter with him, he repressed 
and refuted him with no other arms than the scriptures. Thrice 
he answered him with, * It is written," and with the third reply 
he routed him. If Christ defended himself against Satan with the 
scriptures, how much more needful are the scriptures to us against 
the same enemy! And it was for this end that Christ used the 
weapons of scripture against Satan, that he might afford us an 
example; for he could have repelled Satan with a single word. 
We therefore ought to resist Satan in the same manner, It is 
folly to suppose that Satan can be driven away by bare ceremonies, 
exorcisms, gesticulations, and outward fopperies. We must fight 
with arguments drawn from scripture, and the examples of the 
holy fathers: the scriptures are the only arms which can prevail, 
or ought to be used against him. Those, therefore, who take the 
holy scriptures away from the people, leave them exposed naked 
to Satan, and hurl them into most certain destruction. For with- 
out the protection of scripture the people must necessarily fall 
under all temptations. The apostle Paul, Eph. vi. 16, says that 
the shield, 0vpeov, wherewith the fiery darts of Satan are to be 
quenched, is miotis, Faith. Now faith, as the same apostle testi- 
fies, Rom. x, 17, is “begotten by hearing, and hearing by the 
word of God.” And, as we resist Satan by faith, which is produced 
by the scriptures, so also is he to be attacked by scripture. For in 
the same place that uaxaipa mvevpatos, the spiritual sword, 
is said to be the word of God. From the scriptures, therefore, we 
must take both what are called offensive and defensive arms 
against Satan, with which furnished upon all sides, we shall un- 
doubtedly obtain a happy victory. All the other arms there 
described depend upon faith acquired from the scriptures. Thus 
then we conclude this place and our second argument. All who 
have to contend with Satan ought to read the scriptures, that 
they may use those arms which are supplied by the scriptures 
expertly and skilfully against that deadly and most formidable foe. 
Now Satan wages war against all men without exception. All there- 


238 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


fore ought to read the scriptures; and consequently the scriptures 
ought to be set forth for all people in their own vernacular languages. 

My third argument I form thus: The scriptures are to be 
read publicly in such a manner as that the people may be able to 
derive some advantage from them. But they cannot be useful to 
the people in an unknown tongue: therefore they should be 
translated into a language known to the people. The major is 
indubitable; and, for the minor, it is proved by Paul, 1 Cor. xiv. 
through almost the whole of which chapter he handles this ques- 
tion: “If I shall come to you,” says he, v. 6, “speaking with 
tongues, what shall I profit you?” zi unas wieryow ; as if he 
had said, “ certainly nothing.” And, verse 7, he proves by the 
examples of things without life, as pipe and harp, * which,” says 
he, “ unless they give a distinction (ó:ac roAxv) in their tones, how 
shall it be known what is piped or harped?" In like manner it 
behoves our speech to be evanuos, or significant. So he concludes, 
verse 19, that he would rather speak five words in the church did 
voos, with Ais understanding, so as to instruct others, than “ ten 
thousand words in an unknown tongue,” év yAwooy. Chrysostom, 
in his 35th homily upon the first epistle to the Corinthians, exclaims, 
“What utility can there be in a speech not understood?” cras yap 
ano Pwvys ys ov cumere!; and in the same homily: “He who 
speaks with tongues edifies himself: yet he cannot do even so much 
as this, unless he understand what he says.” So that, according 
to Chrysostom, the reading of what one does not understand, can- 
not profit either others or even the reader himself: yet the popish 
priests used to read every thing in Latin, although very many of 
them were mere illiterate persons. But we shall speak more at 
large upon this subject in the next part. 

The fourth argument. The Lord commands and requires 
that the people should be instructed, full of wisdom and knowledge, 
and perfectly acquainted with the mysteries of salvation. He often 
complains of the ignorance of the people, and commands them to 
be exercised in his word, that they may thence acquire wisdom and 
understanding. Therefore the people ought to read the scriptures, 
since without the reading of the scriptures they cannot acquire 
such knowledge. Now they cannot read them, unless they be 
translated: therefore the scriptures ought to be translated. 
The antecedent is easily proved by many testimonies of scrip- 
ture, Deut. iv. 6, God wills his people Israel to be so well 

[ T. x. 9.82554 


xv; QUESTION THE SECOND. 239 


instructed, so endued with wisdom and knowledge of his law, that 
foreign nations, when they hear of it, may wonder amd exclaim, 
* Lo a people wise and understanding, a great nation!" Coloss. iii. 
16, the apostle desires that the word of Christ may évowetv, dwell 
abundantly, or copiously, movotws, in the Colossians. And, in the 
same epistle, i. 9, he wishes that they may be filled ** with the 
knowledge of his will, in all wisdom and spiritual understanding.” 
And chap. ii. 2, he requires in them “a full assurance of under- 
standing to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God.” And, 2 
Cor. viii. 7, he says that the Corinthians wepiccevew, are abun- 
dantly filled “with faith, and utterance, and knowledge.” And 
Numb. ii. 29, Moses wishes that all the people were prophets. 
And, 1 Cor. xiv. 5, Paul wishes that all might speak with tongues, 
but rather that they should prophesy. Philip. i. 9, the same 
apostle prays that the love of the Philippians may abound more 
and more, “in knowledge and in all judgment.” And, 2 Pet. i. 5, 
Peter admonishes those to whom he writes that they should add vir- 
tue to faith, and to virtue and sanctity of life ryv yveow, know- 
ledge. From these passages we perceive that wisdom, prudence, 
knowledge and understanding are required in the people of God; 
and therefore those who retain them in a stupid and gross igno- 
rance of the scripture inflict a grievous injury upon the people. 
Nay, the fathers also confess, that a knowledge of, and 
acquaintance with, the scriptures is necessary for all Christians. 
Jerome in his commentary upon the Colossians, iii, 16, says: 
* Hence we see that the laity ought to have not only a suffi- 
cient, but an abundant knowledge of the scriptures, and also to 
instruct each other?" Chrysostom, in his ninth homily upon the 
Colossians, writing upon the same passage, remarks that the 
apostle requires the people to know the word of God, not simply, 
but in great abundance, oUx amhws, adda perd ToAAS THs 
meptovaias ; and adds: “ Attend, all ye that are secular (kooptkol), 
and have wives and families depending upon you, how he (the 
apostle) specially commands you to read the scripture; and not 
pore: to read it in a perfunctory manner, but with great dili- 
gence,” qÀXa meTa soXM5s oovóss. Chrysostom observes in 
that same place, that the apostle does not say, let the word of God 
be in you; but, let it dwell in you; and that, rrovciws, richly, 


[? Hine perspicimus non tantum sufficienter, sed etiam abundantur debere 
lacios scripturarum cognitionem habere, et se invicem docere.—T. xr. 1029. 
But this Commentary is not Jerome's.] 

(3 T. xr. p. 391.] 


240 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ou. 


CEcumenius too observes upon the same passage, that the doctrine 
of Christ should dwell in us ev «oAA5; daqiXetq, most abundantly. 
Now, how are we to obtain so full a knowledge of it as this im- 
plies?  CEcumenius informs us by subjoining, dua 77$ T&v "ypadov 
epevuns, by searching the scriptures. So Thomas Aquinas in his 
third lecture upon this chapter: ‘‘ Some," says he, “are satis- 
fied with a very small portion of the word of God; but the apostle 
desires we should have much of it!." 

Our adversaries urge many objections against such knowledge 
being diffused amongst the people. In the first place they allege 
what is found in Luke viii. 10, where Christ says to his disciples: 
* Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, 
but to the rest I speak in parables.” Hence they conclude that 
the scriptures should only be communicated to the learned and 
well-instructed, that is, to the ministers, bishops, priests and pro- 
fessors, but refused to the laity and unlearned people. 

But I answer, that Christ spoke in that place not of the com- 
mon people, but of the scribes and Pharisees who proudly resisted 
him, who * seeing saw not, and hearing did not understand ;” 
and therefore that those words have no reference to the cause we 
have in hand. Thus it is that cardinal Hugo (not to mention 
others) interprets this place; and so also the ordinary gloss. Thus 
Hugo: * To you; that is, who hear willingly, and repose faith in 
my words?.” And the ordinary gloss still more plainly in this man- 
ner: “ Holy things are to be imparted to you who are faithful, 
not to the incredulous Pharisees?." These words of Christ, therefore, 
are no obstacle to the reading of holy scripture by the laity and 
unlearned persons. 

Against such a knowledge in the people, in the second place, Ho- 
sius (in his book de Sacr. Vernac. Legend. Opp. p. 742. Lugd 1563) 
objects certain testimonies of the fathers ; as namely, Augustine, Con- 
tra Epist. Fundament. c. 4, where he says; “It is not the vivacity 
of their understanding, but the simplicity of belief which best secures 
the multitude*;" and in his 102nd Epistle®, where he says: “If Christ 


[! Quibusdam sufficit modicum quid de verbo Dei: sed apostolus vult 
quod habeamus multum, p. 164. 2. T. xvr. Opp. Venet. 1593.] 

[2 Vobis, hoc est, qui libenter auditis, et fidem habetis verbis meis. ] 

[3 Vobis qui fideles estis, non Phariszeis incredulis, sancta sunt danda. | 

[4 Turbam non intelligendi vivacitas, sed credendi simplicitas tutam facit. 
—Tom. x. p. 183. Opp. Bassan. 1797.] 

[^ Si propter eos solos Christus mortuus est qui certa intelligentia possunt 
ista discernere, pene frustra in ecclesia laboramus.—T. 11. p. 786.] 


XV. | QUESTION THE SECOND. 241 


died only for those who can distinguish these matters by a certain 
intelligence, we labour almost in vain in the church," &c. To the 
same effect also he produces Gregory Nazianzen, Lib. 1. de Theo- 
logia, where he says: “It is not the business of all persons to 
dispute concerning God, and the things of God®,” &c. 

I answer, These testimonies do by no means prohibit the read- 
ing of the scriptures, as will better appear upon a particular exami- 
nation of them. For first, as to Augustine: I allow with him, 
that an accurate knowledge of mysteries is not required of the com- 
mon people, ut that it is sufficient for them if they hold the 
foundation of religion sound and whole: for all cannot be quick 
in understanding, and it is enough if they be simple in believing. 
But this simplicity is not that sort of brute ignorance which the 
papists would have in their laity ; since such an ignorance, as the 
papists defend, should rather be styled utter stupidity than simpli- 
city. But the simplicity of Christians should be combined with 
prudence; for while Christ would have us to be simple as doves, he 
would have us also to be wise as serpents, Matth. x. 16. Christ 
died for many, who cannot dispute acutely of the mystery of salva- 
tion, or handle and discuss theological questions in a scholastic man- 
ner: this I allow to be said, and truly said, by Augustine; but 
this does not prove that no knowledge is required in the people. 
I confess that the people do not need to have as much knowledge 
as the learned, who are wholly occupied in books and literature; 
but the people ought not to be (as the papists would have them) 
wholly ignorant of the scriptures and of all knowledge. Gregory 
the Great hath a somewhat similar maxim: “In the common peo- 
ple it is not knowledge, but a good life that is requisite’.” And 
Tertullian, in his Prescriptions against Heretics: ** This faith of 
thine hath saved thee; thy faith, he says, not thy knowledge or 
expertness in seripture?." The same answer will serve for the pas- 
sage from Nazianzen. He does not say that the scriptures should 
not be read by the people, but that every body is not competent 
to determine questions concerning God and abstruse mysteries of 
religion: ov mavros To wept Oeov QuXocoQeiv: which we will- 


[6 Ov mavrós, à oro, TO 7epi Geod dirocopeiv, ov mavrós, ovx obro TO 
zpüypa evovoyv...mpocbjnow 0, ovdé mávrore, ovd€ mao, ovdé mávra.—Orat. 
XXXII. p. 530, c. T. 1. Col. 1690.] 

[7 Non requiritur in vulgo scientia, sed bona vita.] 

[8 Fides, inquit, tua te salvam fecit, non exercitatio scripturarum.—e. 14. 
p. 10. P. rrr. Tertull. Opp. Lips. 1841.] 


[WHITAKER.] 16 


242 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


ingly allow. “For the matter," says he, “is not so mean and 
vile, ovy obrc TO mpü'tyua evwvov, as that every one is able 
to philosophize upon it." Then he says a little lower down, 
* Neither all subjects indiscriminately should be discoursed of, nor 
yet everywhere or to all:” OUTE TWaVTOTE, OUTE "ügGi, OUTE 
awavta. Those, therefore, who have never read or heard anything, 
or who are unskilful, and vet venture to discuss divine matters, — 
such persons are deservedly obnoxious to blame; and such are the 
persons whom Nazianzen means. The unskilful ought, indeed, to 
leave such discussions to others. But the same father! exhorts all 
men to the reading -of scripture, from that passage of David, 
Psalm i. 2: * And in the law of the Lord he meditates day and 
night;" and from Deut. vi.: * Yea," says he in that same place, 
* we should think of God oftener than we breathe: uvsguovevTéov 
ToU Qeov udAXov 7} avarvevoréov’ and, if possible, ovóev àÀXo 
I PUKTEOV, nothing else should be done.” This very learned father 
Nazianzen therefore is no patron of the papists. 

Our fifth argument is to this effect: Christ taught the people 
in their mother-tongue ; so also the apostles and disciples of Christ, 
as well when upon the day of Pentecost they published the gospel 
in a known tongue, as afterwards when, scattered over the whole 
world, they taught all nations in their own native languages. 
Hence we draw our conclusion thus: The holy doctrine of the 
gospel is not contaminated when preached or taught in the verna- 
cular tongue; therefore, not when it is written or read in the 
vernacular tongue. This is the argument of Chemnitz, which the 
Jesuit, in his manuscript lectures, pronounces not worth a farthing. 
The question of farthings will give us no concern. The point is to 
know, why it is invalid? “ Firstly," says he, ‘“ because an 
argument from the preaching of the word to the writing of the 
word is inconsequential; since in preaching every thing may be 
so explained to the people as to make them capable of understand- 
ing it; but in writing each matter is propounded nakedly by itself. 
Secondly, because the apostles preached in various tongues, but all 
wrote in the same language.” 

Let us examine this reply of the Jesuit’s. I allow, indeed, that 
the word preached is much more easily understood than when it is 


(! Kay rà» éemawotvrov eii rov Aóyov, ds peXerüv nucpas kal vuKros Óia- 

A SeeG ^ M M M , a WD - \ 

KeAeverat, kai éomépas kal mpot kai peonuBpias SinyetoOa, Kai evdoyetv Tov 

y. ^ ^ * ^ , 

Kupiov ev mavri kaipà: ei Set kai TO MoUoéos eimeiv, kovra(óuevov, Ouawara- 
pévov, óQovropo)vra, ório)v GAO mpárrovra.—Ut sup. p. 531. B.] 


xv.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 243 


merely read; because, when preached, each several point is ex- 
plained, and variously accommodated and referred to the use of the 
people, which cannot be done when it is merely read. Nevertheless 
the same word should be set forth for the people in their mother 
tongue, in order that, when it is preached, they may have it in 
their hands, and so may see whether that which is propounded to 
them be indeed the word of God, as we read of the Berceans, Acts 
xvii; otherwise any one, at his pleasure, might deliver what he 
liked to the people, and enjoin it upon them as the word of God. 
And the people will derive from this combined preaching and read- 
ing of the scripture advantages both solid and abundant. Besides, 
although they do not immediately understand all they read, yet 
they do understand much, and will understand more every day, 
if they persevere in reading. What is to-day obscure, will become 
clearer to-morrow ; what is now unknown, will afterwards, by use 
and exercise, become better understood. Furthermore, I confess, 
too, that the apostles wrote only in one language; for it would have 
been an infinite task to have written the same things in all the 
languages of all nations: but I say that this one tongue was the 
commonest and most generally diffused of all, so as to render it the 
more easy for the scripture to reach the greatest possible number, 
and be the better and more quickly translated into all other lan- 
guages. Translated, in fact, it was immediately, as we have already 
said, and shall presently shew. 

But here the Jesuit brings a comparison, of how many far- 
things’ worth it may be well to consider. Nurses, says he, do 
not put the food whole into the mouths of infants, but chewed 
before-hand; and in the same way, ministers should not deliver 
the book of scripture entire to the people. I answer: The people 
should not be always like infants, so as always to require chewed 
meat; that is, when they hear the scripture in their native lan- 
guage, understand nothing of it unless it be explained by a mi- 
nister. The minister's voice is indeed required, that the people 
may understand obscure passages, and be excited to the practice 
and exercise of those duties which they have learned from the 
word: yet should they not be so ignorant and childish as not to 
recognise and understand the reading of the scriptures. Such a 
state of ehildhood in the people the apostle frequently reprehends, 
as in 1 Cor, xiv. 20; Eph.iv. 14; Heb. v. 12; and requires from 
them senses exercised in scripture, aicOyrnpia "yecyvpvacuéva. It 
is not fit, therefore, that the people should be always infants, but 

16—2 


244 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


in due time they should become men, and “put away childish 
things," 1 Cor. xiii. 11. 

Our last argument (not to heap up too many) is drawn from 
the use and practice of the ancient church. It is evident from 
history and the books of the holy fathers, that the scriptures were 
translated into all languages, and that the people were always ad- 
monished by their pastors to read them with diligence and assiduity. 
Hence we draw our conclusion thus: Formerly the scriptures were 
extant in vernacular languages, and were also read by the people. 
Therefore the same is lawful at the present day. 

The antecedent hath been proved already above, where we 
shewed that Jerome translated the scriptures into Dalmatian, 
Chrysostom into Armenian, Ulphilas, a bishop of the Goths, 
into Gothic; and others into other languages. But the Jesuit 
replies, that, though the scriptures may lawfully be translated 
into vernacular languages, yet, when so translated, they should 
not be read publicly in the churches; and that, as to those ver- 
nacular versions of Jerome, Chrysostom, and the rest, which 
we mentioned above, they were not communicated to all, but 
were only written for the consolation of some particular persons. 
But the Jesuit cannot thus escape through such a chink as this. 
For, since the reason of these versions was a public one, and had 
regard to all,—namely, that all might thus be enabled to read the 
scriptures, and obtain a knowledge of them,—this fiction of the 
Jesuit’s is easily confuted. Now the truth of this appears from the 
design of all these versions: and specially of the Gothic Socrates, 
Lib. rv. c. 33, tells us that its reason and end was that the barba- 
rians might learn and understand * the divine oracles.” The scrip- 
tures, therefore, were not translated for the sake of a few, but of 
all, in order that they might be read by all. For what else could 
be the reason of these versions? If they had been unwilling that 
the scriptures should be publicly read, they would never have put 
them into the vulgar tongue. If it had been unlawful for the 
scriptures to be read publicly in the vulgar tongue, as the papists 
would persuade us, can we suppose that Jerome, Chrysostom, and 
other pious fathers, would ever have rendered them into the proper 
and native language of the common people? This is incredible 
and absurd. But I shall prove, by many testimonies of the fathers 
that the scriptures were read by all. Jerome, upon Ps. Ixxxvi. 
writes thus!: * The Lord hath related in the scriptures of the 


[ T; vu. y» 103-1] 


xv. | | QUESTION THE SECOND. 245 


people, the holy scriptures; which scriptures,” says he, “are 
read by all people:” whence it appears that none were prevent- 
ed from reading them. But why were the scriptures read by 
all people? _Jerome answers in the same place, to the end 
* that all might understand.” Not therefore, according to the 
Jesuit’s fiction, that one or a few might understand them. Chry- 
sostom, in his first Homily? upon the Gospel of John, writes that 
the Syrians, Egyptians, Indians, Persians, Ethiopians, and innumer- 
able other nations, had translated the divine doctrines “ into their 
own language, and thus the barbarians had learned philosophy." 

If any one desires a still more illustrious testimony, let him 
read Augustine, De Doct. Christ. Lib. 1. c. 5, where these words 
may be found: * Hence it hath come to pass, that the scripture 
of God (which is the remedy for such grievous disorders of the 
human wil), proceeding from one language, commodiously fitted 
for dissemination through the globe, and diffused far and wide 
by the various tongues of its interpreters, hath become known 
to all people for their salvation; which when they read, they 
desire nothing else but to find out the thoughts and will of those 
by whom it was written, and through them the will of God, ac- 
cording to which we believe that such men as they were spoke?." 
Thus far Augustine in whose words we may observe these five 
points: First, that the scripture was published in that language, 
from which it might most conveniently be transfused into others. 
Secondly, that in fact it was variously translated. Thirdly, that it 
thus became known to all for salvation. Fourthly, that it was read 
by the people; which is evident from the words, *reading which 
they desire nothing else."  Fifthly, that it was not only read, but 
understood; which the last words render sufficiently apparent. 

Theodoret, in the fifth book of Therapeutic Discourses, estab- 
lishes the same fact in these words: “The Hebrew books were 
not only translated into the Greek language, but into the Ro- 
man tongue also, into the Egyptian, Persian, Indian, Armenian, 


[? Hom. 2. al. 1. T. vit. p. 10, B.] 

[3 Ex quo factum est, ut scriptura divina (qua tantis morbis humanarum 
voluntatum subvenitur) ab una lingua profecta, que opportune potuit per 
orbem terrarum disseminari, per varias interpretum linguas longe lateque 
diffusa, innotesceret gentibus ad salutem; quam legentes nihil aliud appe- 
tunt, quam cogitationes voluntatemque illorum a quibus conscripta est inve- 
nire, et per illas voluntatem Dei, secundum quam tales homines loquutos esse 
credimus. } 


246 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


Scythian, and even Sarmatian, or (to say it at once in one 
word) into all the languages which nations use up to this day!" 
Nothing could possibly be written more explicitly. 

From what hath been said, it is evident that the scriptures 
were formerly translated into the vulgar tongue; not only into 
some certain languages, but into all promiscuously. Where- 
fore now, in like manner, they should be translated and read 
vernacularly. Were I now to proceed in detail through all those 
sentences of the fathers in which they exhort the people to the 
study of the scriptures, I should never come to an end. Chry- 
sostom presses this exhortation most earnestly in many places, and 
is so vehement in the matter that we seem actually frigid in com- 
parison of him. In his ninth Homily upon. the Epistle to the 
Colossians, he uses these expressions: * Hear me, I beseech you, 
all men of secular life, Procure for yourselves bibles, the medicines 
of the soul. If ye will have nothing else, get yourselves even the 
new Testament alone, the Apostolic Epistles, the Acts, the Gospels, 
as your constant and perpetual instructors. Should any distress 
befall you, apply to this as a dispensary of remedies. Hence draw 
your balm, whether it be losses, or death, or domestie bereavement, 
that hath befallen you. Nay, not only apply to it, but take it all 
in and hold it in your mind. The one great cause of all evils is 
ignorance of scripture.” In the same place, he addresses fathers 
of families thus: * You lay every thing on our shoulders: it were 
fitting that you only should need to be instructed by us, and by 
you your wives, and by you your children, should be taught?." 

Hence it appears how absurd is the answer of the Jesuit, 
when he endeavours to wrest the testimony of this father out of 
our hands. ‘Chrysostom,’ says he, “is not to be understood in 
the sense which the words seem to bear at first sight; for he 
speaks with exaggerated emphasis. He only wishes by these 
exhortations to take the people off from the games and spectacles 
to which they were at that time wholly given up.” To which I 
might reply, that now also there are games and spectacles and 
many other occasions by which the people are seduced from piety ; 


[! Kal 5 'Efpaíev devi od póvov eis rjv Tov 'EXMjvev pereBAHOn, adda 
xai eis THY Tov Popnaíev kai Aiyvmríev kai Tepody xai 'Iróóv kal ‘Appeviov 
Kat ZkvÓGv xai Savpoparay, kai cvAAQBÓmv eimeiv, eis macas tas yAorras ais 
dravra ra €Ovm kexpnpéva OureXei.— Gree. Affect. Curat. (ed. Sylburg. 1692.) 
Serm. v. p. 81. 1. 14.] 

(ole. p. 390.] 


xv.] | QUESTION THE SECOND. 247 


and that therefore in these times also they should be exhorted to 
read the scriptures. But it is manifest that Chrysostom did not 
merely say these things to deter the people from such trifling and 
seductive amusements, or take them off from their pursuits, but 
because he thought the perusal of the scriptures appertained to the 
duty of the people. In consequence, in his third Homily upon 
Lazarus, he wishes the people to examine the passage at home 
which he was about to treat of in the church. His words are 
as follows: “On this very account we often forewarn you, many 
days before, of the subject upon which we intend to speak, in 
order that, in the intervening time, you may take up the book 
and weigh the whole matter; and thus, by distinetly understand- 
ing what hath been.said and what still remains to be said, your 
minds may be the better prepared to hear what shall afterwards 
be discoursed to you. And now I constantly exhort you, and 
shall never cease to exhort you, not merely to attend here to what 
is said to you, but also, when you are at home, to betake your- 
selves assiduously to the perusal of the holy scriptures?." Then 
he removes all the excuses which the people used to allege for 
not reading the sacred scriptures,— not only that about the spec- 
tacles, but others much more reasonable, as the following: “I am 
not a monk, but a layman; I have a wife, and children, and a 
family to mind, and am distracted by a multiplicity of avocations ; 
this appertains to others and not to me.” All these he removes, 
and affirms more than once: * It is impossible, it is, I say, impos- 
sible, that any one can obtain salvation, who is not continually 
employed in spiritual studies.” Yea, he removes also the excuse © 
grounded upon the obscurity of scripture, and says that it is 
nothing but “a pretext and cloak of carelessness.” He writes 
to the same effect, Hom. 29 in Genes.; Hom, 13 in Joan.; Hom. 
2 in Matt.; Hom. 3 in 2 Thess.; and elsewhere; which testimony 
I, for the present, omit to cite at length. 

Other fathers also agree with Chrysostom and us in this 
matter. Origen, Hom. 12 in Exod.*, blames the people in many 
words for not attending to the scripture in church, and meditating 
upon it at home also. The same author, in his second Homily 
upon Isaiah, says: ** Would that we all did that which is written, 
‘Search the scriptures®’.” He says all, not merely the learned, or 


[9 T. x: p. 737. a. B.] 

[4 p. 174. a. ed. Benedict.] 

[5 Utinamque omnes faceremus illud quod scriptum est, Scrutamini scrip- 
turas.—Opp. T. 1. p. 639. Basil. 1536.] 


248 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ou. 


the bishops, or the spiritualty. Jerome, in his Epistle to Eusto- 
chium, exhorts her to the constant reading of the scriptures. But 
here the Jesuit answers, that Eustochium and her mother Paula 
understood not only Latin, but Greek and Hebrew also; and adds 
farther, that they were modest women, and that, if all women were 
like them, they might without danger be permitted to read the holy 
scriptures. But Jerome invites not only Eustochium, but all pious 
women to the reading of the scriptures; and in the epitaph of 
Paula he affirms, that not only Eustochium but all the sisters sung 
the Psalms of David in course: ‘ None of the sisters,” says he, 
* was allowed to remain ignorant of the Psalms, or to fail of learn- 
ing something from the holy scriptures every day!" Writing to 
the widow Salvina?, he exhorts her to be continually occupied with 
pious reading. So also he exhorts a matron named Celancia?, to 
make it *her chief care" to know the law of God. And he writes 
in the same strain to many other females. Thus of old times all, 
both men and women, whose souls were warmed with any zeal for - 
piety, were occupied in the reading of the scriptures. 

Theodoret, in the book already cited, namely, the fifth of his 
Therapeutic Discourses, writes thus concerning the present subject: 
* You may see everywhere these doctrines of ours understood not 
only by those who are masters in the church and teachers of the 
people, but by the very cobblers and smiths, weavers and artisans 
of every kind, yea, and by women too of all classes; not alone 
those, if there be such, who are acquainted with literature, but by 
those who work for hire with their needles, by maid-servants and 
nursery girls. Nor is it only the inhabitants of cities who know 
these things, but the rustics have almost an equal acquaintance with 
them; and you will find men who dig the ground, or tend cattle, or 
plant vegetables, who can dispute of the divine Trinity and the cre- 
ation of all things, and who are better acquainted with human 
nature than Plato and the Stagirite were*.” Thus Theodoret. But 


[! Nec licebat cuiquam sororum ignorare Psalmos, et non quotidie aliquid 
de scripturis sanctis discere.— Opp. p. 706. T. 1.] 

[2 T. 1. p. 493.] 

[3 T. 1. p. 1089.] 

[* Kal écriw iO0eiv ra)vra eiddras rà Sdypara, ov povous ye Tis ékkAgoías 
tous Oi0ackàXovs, dÀÀà kai oKuToTdpous, kai xaÀkorvmovs, Kal TaAactovpyoys, 
kat tovs GAXovs aroxeipoBi@rous: kal yvvaikas óga0ros, ov pdvoy Tas Aóyov 
pereaxnkvias, GAAa kai yepyytidas Kal dkeotpidas, Kal pévror Kai Oepamaivas: 
kal ov pdvoy dcTol, dÀÀà kal yopirixol tHvde THY yrdoow eoxnKaoe Kal €or 
ebpeiv kai oKarravéas kat Bonddras kai purovpyovs mepi tis Oeias OuaXeyopé- 


XV. | ! QUESTION THE SECOND. 249 


the papists now make it a matter of reproach to us, that amongst 
us women converse about sacred matters, or any men even except 
thelearned. Hosius complains bitterly of this in his book, De Sacro 
vernacule Legendo. ‘This profanation," says he, * rather than 
translation of the scripture has brought us not only men belt- 
makers, porters, bakers, tailors, cobblers; but also female belt- 
makers, sewers and stitehers, she-apostles, prophetesses, doc- 
tresses>:” as if, forsooth, it were not lawful for women, in what- 
ever station of life, to understand the mysteries of religion. And 
Alphonsus de Castro, de Just. Punit. Heret. Lib. m. c. 6, says 
that the translation of the scriptures into the vulgar tongue is “ the 
cause of all heresies?:" of course, because whatever displeases the 
Roman pontiff is undoubtedly heretical. But Eusebius, Demonstr. 
Evang. Lib. r. c. 6, passes a much sounder judgment upon this 
matter, when he says: ** The divine doctrines may be learned as 
well by women as by men, by the poor as by the rich, by servants 
as by masters." Erasmus, a man of the greatest Judgment and 
extraordinary genius, affirms in many places, that it is necessary 
that the scriptures should be translated and read by the people; 
and, when he was blamed on that account by the divines of Paris, 
he defended himself against them not only by the precedent of the 
ancient church, but by the necessity of the thing itself. 

And let this suffice upon the first member of the second part of 
this second question. 


vous tpiados, kal epi ths TÀv OÀov Onuiovpyías, kai Trjv dvÓpemeíav piow 
eióras Apicrorédous moAA@ paddov kai IIAdrowvos.—p. 81. ed. Sylburg. 1592. 
I have departed in one word from Sylburgius! orthography, writing dmoyepo- - 
Buworovs for droxeipoBidrovs. There are indeed some instances of dSioros, but 
Lobeck I think truly treats them as only a kind of a play upon Bros, in 
connexion with which they occur.—See Lobeck ad Phrynich. p. 713.] 

[5 Profanatio hee scripture verius quam translatio non solum zonarios, 
bovillos, pistores, sartores, sutores, verum etiam zonarias, bovillas, sartrices, 
sutrices facit nobis apostolas, prophetissas, doctrices.—Opp. p. 745. Lugdun. 
1563.] 

[$ The title of the chapter is De quinta causa heeresium, quee est Sacree 
Scriptures translatio in linguam yulparem. Fol. 208. 2. Salmant. i 

[7 dere Toia)ra pavOavery Kat uL La p) póvov avdpas adda kal -yv- 
vaikas, mAovgíovs Te kal mévntas, kal SovAovs qua Seomdrais.— p. 24. D. ed. 
Viger. Paris. 1628.] 





250 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [oH. 


CHAPTER XVI. 


STATE OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING PUBLIC PRAYERS AND 
SACRED RITES IN THE VULGAR TONGUE, 


We have now at length come to the second member of the 
second part of this question, which concerns the celebration of 
divine service, that is, the public prayers and offices of the church, 
in the vulgar tongue of all churches. The papists everywhere 
make use of the Latin tongue in all their churches throughout all 
nations: which practice, impious and absurd as it is, is yet con- 
firmed by the authority of the council of Trent, Sess. xx. cap. 8; 
where it is said “not to seem good to the fathers, that the mass 
should everywhere be celebrated in the vulgar tongue.” Now 
under the name of the mass they understand the whole liturgy and 
all the offices of the church. Nevertheless it is permitted in the 
same decree ‘to pastors and those who have the cure of souls, fre- 
quently during the celebration of mass, either themselves or through 
others, to expound some parts of what is read in the mass!” And 
in canon IX. of that session, the council says: “If any affirm that 
the mass should only be celebrated in the vulgar tongue, let him be 
anathema?" — Hosius also hath written a book upon this subject, 
to which he gives this title, * De Sacro vernacule Legendo ;” 
wherein he asserts that the Latin was the only language ever used 
in the Western church, and the Greek in the Eastern. We, on 
the contrary, maintain that always in all ancient churches of 
the Christians the lessons and public prayers were held in that 
language which the people understood, and that so it should always 


[! Etsi Missa magnam contineat populi fidelis eruditionem, non tamen 
visum est patribus, ut vulgari passim lingua celebretur. Quamobrem, retento 
ubique cujusque ecclesi; antiquo, et a sancta Romana ecclesia, omnium 
ecclesiarum matre et magistra, probato ritu, ne oves Christi esuriant, neve 
parvuli panem petant, et non sit qui frangat eis, mandat sancta Synodus pas- 
toribus et singulis curam animarum gerentibus, ut frequenter inter missarum 
celebrationem, vel per se vel per alios, ex iis quee in missa leguntur, aliquid 
exponant, atque inter cetera sanctissimi bujus sacrificii mysterium aliquod 
declarent, diebus prsesertim dominicis et festis.—Sess. xx11. c. viii.] 

(2 Si quis dixerit, ecclesize Romane ritum, quo submissa voce pars canonis 
et verba consecrationis proferuntur, damnandum esse ; aut lingua tantum vul- 
gari missam celebrari debere ; aut aquam non miscendam esse vino in calice 
offerendo, eo quod sit contra Christi institutionem: anathema sit.—Can. rx. 
ut supra. | 


XVI. | | QUESTION THE SECOND. 251 


be. Wherefore the reformed churches have justly banished these 
Latin services. The state, therefore, of the controversy is this; 
whether publie prayers are only to be held in the Latin tongue, or 
in the vulgar tongue of every nation? We have already proved 
that the scriptures should be translated into the vulgar tongue: and 
since the reason is the same for celebrating prayers and translating 
scripture vernacularly, the same arguments will serve for confirming 
this cause as for the former. On this account the Jesuit hath 
mixed up this question with the previous one, and treated of them 
both together: yet it seemed to us more prudent to discuss these 
matters separately. 

So much we thought fit to premise upon the state of the 
question. Let us now proceed to the arguments on both sides. 





CHAPTER XVII. 


THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PAPISTS FOR SERVICE IN A FOREIGN 
TONGUE ARE CONFUTED. 


IN the first place, as our proposed plan requires, we shall set 
forth the arguments of the papists, upon which they rely to prove 
that public prayers and the other offices of the church should only 
be celebrated in the Latin tongue. 

Their first argument is to this effect: The majesty of religious 
offices requires a language more grand and venerable than the 
vulgar tongues of every nation. Therefore they should be per- 
formed in Latin, not in the vernacular. 

I answer: In the first place, What is that peculiar dignity, 
majesty, or sanctity which the Latin tongue hath more than others? 
Surely, none. Yea, nothing can be slighter, more futile, or more 
foolish, than those common Latin services which are used by the 
Roman church. For my part, I can recognise no greater holiness in 
one language than in another ; nor a greater dignity either; unless, 
perhaps, they hold the Latin in such high esteem for the sake of 
its phrases, its antiquity, or the mysteries which are consigned in 
thatlanguage. But gravity, holiness, and majesty are in the things, 
not in the tongue. The Latin, therefore, cannot contribute any 
additional dignity to the scripture. Secondly, I deny that the 
majesty of sacred things can be diminished by any vernacular 
tongues, however barbarous. Nothing can be more dignified, ma- 
jestie, or holy than the gospel. Yet, Acts ii, it was expounded 


252 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ oH. 


and published by the apostles in all languages, even barbarous 
ones: which they certainly never would have done, if they had 
supposed that by so doing its majesty would have run the risk of 
being in the slightest degree impaired. But the Jesuit urges that 
there are many mysteries which must not be imparted to the 
people; and that they are profaned when they are translated into 
the vulgar tongue, and so commonly published to everybody. This 
he proves by the testimonies of certain fathers, as Dionysius the 
Areopagite, Basil, and others. Nay, our countrymen the Rhemists, 
too, urge the same plea in their Annotations upon 1 Cor. xiv., where 
they complain most piteously that the mysteries of the sacraments 
are horribly profaned, which should be carefully concealed from the 
common people. 

I answer: In the first place, neither Christ nor the apostles 
ever commanded that those mysteries should be concealed from the 
people. Yea, on the contrary, Christ instituted such sacraments in 
order to instruct us through our very senses: this was the end of 
the institution itself. And, indeed, the whole significance of these 
mysteries was of old quite familiarly known by the people; and 
therefore the apostle, 1 Cor. x. 15, when about to enter upon a 
discourse concerning the sacraments, addresses the Corinthians thus : 
“IT speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say." Consequently 
they were not ignorant of the sacraments; for he calls them wise 
men, and would have them judge of what he was about to say. 
Nothing, indeed, could bear a more ludicrous and trifling appearance 
than the sacraments, unless their design and reason were known, 
For what advantage could a gentile, or any one unacquainted with 
that sacrament, suppose to have accrued to an infant by merely 
seeing it baptized? What advantage, in his opinion, would a 
Christian receive by taking a morsel of bread and a few drops of 
wine? Surely nothing could seem more foolish to one who was 
not acquainted with the reason and object of these ceremonies. 
These therefore should not be concealed, but explained to God’s 
people; and the hiding of them is an antichristian device to fill the 
people with a stupid admiration of they know not what. 

I answer, secondly, to the testimonies of the fathers: and, first, 
to Dionysius!, whose words are cited from the book of the Ecclesi- 


[1 The works of the pseudo-Dionysius were published by Corderius in 
Greek, Paris, 1615. But the last and best edition is that of 1644, printed 
also at Paris with the Defensio Areopagitica of Chaumont. For a full ac- 
count compare Daillé, de Script. Dion. Areop. Geneva, 1666; and Pearson, 
Vindic. Ignat. par. 1. c. 10.] 


XVII. | | QUESTION THE SECOND. 253 


astical Hierarchy, cap. 1, where he admonishes Timotheus, to whom 
he writes, concerning the sacred mysteries, aueÜekra Kal ax pavTa 
TOLS ATEXETTOLS OvaTnpety, and tepots MOVOLS TOV LEpWY kotwcmvetv' 
that is, **that they should not be imparted to the uninitiate, because 
holy things are only to be given to holy persons, and pearls are 
not to be cast to swine." Now, as to this Dionysius, I deny, in the 
first place, that he is the Areopagite mentioned Acts xvii. 34. And 
this I do, not because I feel uneasy at his testimony (for he says no 
more than what Christ himself distinctly enjoins, Matt. vii. 6); but 
because I am led to form this opinion by certain arguments, which 
it is not, at present, needful for me to touch upon. There will be 
another opportunity of speaking about this Dionysius. Secondly, 
I say that his opinion is true and pious, and makes, in no respect, 
against us, as will readily appear to any one who will consider the 
passage. The sense of his words is, that holy things are not to be 
exposed or cast before heathen, gentiles, and profane persons: 
which, indeed, ought to hold as well in the case of the word, as in 
that of the sacraments. But the fathers formerly were much more 
cautious with respect to the sacraments than the word; because 
heathen and impure men used to deride and despise the sacraments 
much more than the preaching of the word. Now that this is the 
meaning of Dionysius, his scholiast Maximus informs us; whose 
words are as follows: “It is not fit to reveal the holy things to the 
profane, nor to fling pearls to swine?" But the laity ought not to 
be compared to swine, nor treated as profane, or spectators of the 
Eleusinian mysteries. If they wish to be pious, holy, and faithful, 
they should be acquainted with the design of the mysteries. And 
I make the same answer to the testimony of Basil, which is con- 
tained in his treatise, de Sp. S., Lib. i. c. 273. The people cer- 
tainly are not bound to feel much indebted to those who think of 
them so meanly and dishonourably as to regard them as swine and 


[2 od det rà (yia rois BeBnros exqpaivery, ovdé ro) papyapíras rois xolpots 
pimrew. This scholiast was Maximus the Confessor, who flourished about the 
year 645. ] 

[3 à yap ovdé émomrevew &Éeor. Trois dpvyrow, rovrov Tas àv Fy elkds T]v 
didacxariay OpiauBebew. ev ypaupaow.—Basil. Opp. T. rr. p. 211. B. Which, 
by the way, is a good instance of Op:ay8evo in the sense of openly displaying. 
Cf. Col. ii. 15; 2 Cor. ii. 14. I observe another instance in Cabasilas, as 
given in Jahn's Lerefrüchte byzantinischer Theologie, in Ullman's Studien 
und Krit. for 1843, part 3, p. 744, n. 62. — Ovoiv dvrwv, à OzXov Kabictnor kal 
OptapBever tov épacryy.] 


254 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


dogs. Chrysostom, Hom. 24, in Matt., and Gregory, Dial. Lib. 1v. 
c. 56, contain nothing pertinent to the present question. 

The second argument of our adversaries is grounded upon the 
authority of scripture, namely, Levit. xvi. 17, where the people are 
commanded to remain without and wait for the priest, whilst he 
enters the sanctuary, and offers up prayers alone for himself and 
the people. This is commanded in that passage; and an example 
of the practice is given Luke i. 10, where we read that the people 
stood without, while Zacharias offered incense in the temple: whence 
it is clear that the people not only did not understand the priest, 
but did not even hear him. Therefore it is considered unnecessary 
that the people should understand the prayers which are offered by 
the priest to God. 

I answer: That the conclusion does not follow from this precept 
and example. For, in the first place, there was an express com- 
mandment of God that the people should remain without, and the 
priest alone should offer incense in the sanctuary. | Let them, if 
they can, produce any similar command for their Latin liturgy and 
foreign services, and we will yield to their opinion. But they 
cannot; and, in matters of religion, nothing should be attempted 
without a command. Secondly, this was typical. Therefore the 
same should not now be done; since all the old types have been 
done away. The priest was in the place of Christ, and represented 
him, who thus went up alone into the sanctuary, that is, into heaven, 
where he now intercedes with God for the church, although we do 
not now see or hear him. I deny that this should now be imitated 
by us; for typical observances have now no place. Thirdly, the 
people were not able even to hear the absent priest speaking, much 
less to understand what he said: but when the priest spoke in 
presence of the people, he spoke in such a manner as to be under- 
stood by all. But the priests of the papists, even under the eyes 
and in the audience of the people, perform and celebrate their 
unholy rites and sacrifices, which are no sacrifices, in a foreign 
tongue. 

Their third argument is that of cardinal Hosius, in his book, 
De Sacro vernac. Legendo, and is to this effect: ‘ Religion and 
piety have been so far from being increased, that they have been 
diminished, since some have begun to use the Vulgar tongue in the 
offices of the church. Therefore they ought rather to be per- 
formed and celebrated in the Latin language." 

I answer, in the first place, Though we were to concede the 


xvir.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 255 


truth of what Hosius affirms, it will not follow thence that the public 
service should be performed in Latin, and not in the Vulgar tongue. 
For what if many are made worse? Will it therefore follow that 
vernacular prayers are to be entirely banished? The doctrine of 
the gospel renders many more perverse and obstinate; yet it ought 
not, on that account, to be concealed from the people. When Christ 
preached and taught the people, the Pharisees were made more 
obstinate; and the apostle says that the gospel is to some the 
savour of death unto death: and yet nevertheless the gospel should 
always be preached. That reason, therefore, is not a just cause 
why the offices of the church should not be performed in the Vul- 
gar tongue, because many are thereby rendered worse; unless it 
be proved that the vernacular language is the cause of that ill 
effect: which they cannot prove. Secondly, I say that what is 
supposed in the antecedent is untrue. For although there does 
not appear in the people so much superstition as formerly; yet in 
the reformed churches at the present day the sincerity of true 
religion is more flourishing. The people, indeed, are not so super- 
stitious as they were formerly: they then feared everything with 
a certain stupid superstition, which, it must be allowed, repressed, 
however, many crimes. Yet they are now much more religious in 
our churches. For they are deceived, who suppose that there is 
any piety, or virtue, or religion, in blind. ignorance or superstition. 
And although there be amongst us many profane persons, such as 
there will never be lacking in the church of God, there are yet 
many who have a true sense of religion. So much upon the 
argument of Hosius. 

The fourth argument is that adduced by Harding? in his third 
article against Jewel, sect. 8. which stands thus: “A great part of 
Asia Minor used only the Greek language in their service; but 
the whole people did not understand Greek. Therefore it is law- 
ful to use an unknown tongue in the public service.” 

I answer, firstly, he should prove that all Asia Minor used the 
Greek language in their service; which since he fails to do, his syl- 
logism is composed of merely particular propositions, and therefore 
concludes nothing. Secondly, he should prove his minor. He con- 


{1 “The less Asia, being a principal part of the Greek Church, had then 
the service in the Greek tongue. But the people of sundry regions and 
countries of the less Asia then understood not the Greek tongue; ergo, the 
people of sundry regions and countries had then their service in an unknown 
tongue.” Apud Jewel, Art. rrr. $. 8. p. 272. ut supra. ] 


256 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


firms it, indeed, by a twofold testimony. The first is taken from 
Acts xiv. 11, where, when Paul had healed a man who was lame 
from his mother's womb, the people are said to have lifted up their 
voice Avxaovori, “in the speech of Lycaonia,” and to have said, 
“The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men." Hence 
he collects that the whole people of Asia Minor did not understand 
Greek, since the people of Lystra and Derbe, which were two 
cities of Asia Minor, did not speak in Greek but in Lycaonian. I 
answer; the Lycaonian tongue was not a different language from 
the Greek!, but only a different dialect. For Paul did not preach 
the gospel to that people in Lycaonian, but in Greek; while yet 
the people doubtless understood what he said, as is manifest from 
the instance of the lame man who was cured and converted by 
Paul. If Paul had spoken in Lycaonian, and not in Greek, why 
does Luke write particularly that they uttered this exclamation “in 
the speech of Lycaonia?” This reasoning, therefore, is the same as 
if he were to say : they spoke Doric, and therefore did not speak 
Greek. Furthermore, that they both understood and spoke Greek, 
is evident from the fact that Amphilochius, a bishop of Lycaonia?, 
wrote in Greek, some fragments of whom are extant to this day. 
The second testimony by which he confirms his minor, is 
taken from the second chapter of the Acts, where Cappadocia, 
Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, &c., are enumerated as sundry 
regions, and must therefore have used sundry languages. I an- 
swer: Some of those tongues which the apostles used, were not 
altogether different and distinct, but only various dialects. So the 
speech which the Galileans used was different from that of the 
Jews; yet not so as to be another language, but only another dia- 
lect. For the maid-servant doubtless understood Peter, who was 
of Galilee, when she said, * Thy speech bewrayeth thee.” So a 
Cappadocian could understand a Phrygian speaking, a Pamphylian 


[1 We are left to mere conjecture upon this subject. Grotius supposed 
the Lycaonian to be the same as the Cappadocian. Jablonsky determines 
that it was a Greek dialect, but next akin to the Assyrian and thence derived. 
Guhling published a separate dissertation, De Lingua Lycaonica a Pelasgis 
Greecis orta, Wittenberg, 1726, in which he contends that the Lycaonian was 
derived from the Greek. See Kuinoel upon Acts xiv. 11.] ! 

(? i.e. Bishop of Iconium, the capital of Lycaonia. He flourished a.p. 
370. The principal fragments that go under his name were published by 
Combefis, Paris, 1644. But there is an epistle preserved by Cotelerius, in 
his Monumenta, T. rr. p. 99, which is supposed to be the only genuine piece 
of his now extant. ] ; 


XVII. | | QUESTION THE SECOND. 257 


a Cretan, an Athenian a Spartan. Now that the people of Asia 
Minor understood the Greek language is certain: for Paul wrote 
to the Ephesians, to the Galatians, and to the Colossians in Greek. 
But Ephesus, Galatia, and Colossze, were cities of Asia Minor. There- 
fore either all Asia, or a great part of this Asia, understood Greek: 
otherwise Paul would never have written. to them in Greek. 
Besides, the same is evident from Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, 
Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, Basil, bishop of Czesarea in Cappadocia ; 
who all, though bishops of Asia Minor, wrote all their works in 
Greek. Jerome too, in his second proem to the Epistle to the 
Galatians, affirms that the whole East spoke Greek?. The papists 
therefore can never prove that Asia Minor did not use the Greek 
language. Or, if amongst those people some were ignorant of 
Greek, how will they prove that they had their service in the 
Greek language? Hence their argument is inconsequential in 
every possible way of considering it. 

The fifth argument, which some at least advance, is of this 
kind: Three languages were hallowed upon the cross: therefore 
we ought to use only these languages in the public offices of the 
church. And Bellarmine says that we should be content with 
those three languages which Christ honoured upon the cross. 

I answer: In the first place, that title was not written in three 
languages in order that those languages should thereby be conse- 
crated to such a use; but that the report of Christ's death should 
so be diffused as widely as possible. Secondly, this is an allegori- 
cal argument, and therefore of itself concludes nothing. Thirdly, 
Cajetan, Jentac. Lib. 1. Quest. 4, says that these three languages 
** were the representatives of all languages *," because the number 
three denotes perfection. If this be so, then all the languages of 
all nations can celebrate the death of Christ, and all the services 
of Christianity. 

The other arguments of the adversary in this question have 
no weight in them whatsoever, and I will not be guilty of seeming 
to waste time in unnecessary disputes. 


[3 Excepto sermone Greeco, quo omnis oriens loquitur. "T. 1v. p. 1. 255.] 

[^ Et tribus preecipuis linguis omnium linguarum vices gerentibus, ex 
ipsius etiam trinarii omnia complectentis perfectione, scribere dispo suit. 
Jentacula Novi Testamenti. 27. 2. Paris. 1536.] 





Ei 


[WHITAKER.] 


258 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ oH. 


CHAPTER XVIII. 


OUR ARGUMENTS, WHEREBY WE PROVE THAT THE OFFICES OF THE 
CHURCH SHOULD BE PERFORMED IN THE VERNACULAR LAN- 
GUAGE OF EVERY PEOPLE. 


Let us now proceed to the establishment of our own opinion, 
whither all those arguments which we used in the former part may 
be referred. or if the scriptures should be read in the vulgar 
tongue, then certainly the rest of the service should be performed 
in the vulgar tongue also. However, we will now use some 
peculiar and separate arguments in this question. 

Our rinsT argument shall be taken from Paul's first epistle to 
the Corinthians, chap. xiv.: in which chapter Paul directs, that 
everything should be done for the edification of the people in the 
church, that no one should speak in a strange tongue without an 
interpreter; and adds, that he would rather speak five words with 
his understanding, so as to instruct others also, than ten thousand 
words in an unknown tongue. And the whole chapter is spent 
upon this subject. Whence it evidently appears that the popish 
opinion is repugnant to apostolical teaching. We reason thus from 
that chapter against the papists: If prayers in the Latin are 
everywhere to be set forth for the people, then the people will 
not understand what is said. But the apostle expressly forbids 
this in this chapter. Therefore public prayers should not be 
everywhere celebrated in the Latin tongue. However, let us 
weigh the answer of our opponents to this reasoning; who, in 
truth, are wonderfully perplexed at this passage, and have 
devised many contrivances to evade it. 

Some papists reply, that Paul does not speak in that chapter 
of prayers, offices, or stated services, but of exhortations and publie 
sermons, which they confess should be delivered in the vulgar 
tongue. But I deny that the meaning of the apostle was merely 
to forbid a strange language in exhortations or sermons. For who 
would have been mad enough to deliver an harangue to the people 
in an unknown tongue? Who could so much as have hoped that 
the people would be sufficiently attentive to hear with patience and 
civility a man uttering, by the space of an hour or more, words 
which they did not understand? We read that some persons for- 
merly in the church preached in a foreign tongue, but we read also 
that there were at the same time interpreters at hand. But this is 
quite another matter. I allow, indeed, that the apostle does men- 


XVIII. ] | QUESTION THE SECOND. 259 


tion sermons; for it is with such a reference that he says, verse 
29, “ Let the prophets speak (AaAeérecav) by two or three, and 
the rest judge:" but that this is his whole subject, upon which he 
is entirely engaged throughout that chapter, I deny. For how are 
we to understand what is said ver. 14, “If I pray in an unknown 
tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful ?” 
Besides he speaks of services to which the people answer Amen. 
Now the people use not to do this to sermons. He mentions also 
giving of thanks and praising God. Nay, the fathers themselves, 
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Ambrose, CEZcumenius, and all who have 
well explained this chapter, confess that Paul speaks not only of 
exhortations and sermons, but also of public prayers. Yea, Hard- 
ing, Art. ii. Sect. 18!, allows that it was needful in the primitive 
church that prayers should be held in the vulgar and intelligible 
tongue, but contends that it is now no longer requisite. But now 
the papists, become more learned, choose another mode of answer- 
ing. They confess, indeed, that the apostle speaks of public prayers; 
but they deny it to be requisite that the whole people should un- 
derstand the prayers which the minister repeats; for they say it 
is sufficient if one only, whom they commonly call the clerk, un- 
derstand them, who is to answer Amen in behalf of the whole 
congregation. They prove this from those words of the apostle, 
at verse 16, “If thou shalt bless with the spirit, how (says the old 
edition) shall he who supplies the place of the unlearned answer 
Amen?" Thus Stapleton, in his English book against Jewel, Art. iii. 
Thus a certain papist, who hath made an epitome of Bellarmine’s 
Lectures. So Thomas Aquinas. So Catharinus. So Sixtus Se- 
nensis, Bibliothec. — Lib. vi. Annot. 263. 

I answer: In the first place, the Latin vulgate version is false 
and foolish, and does not agree with the Greek text. For tozos 
never means the person of those represented; and avavA5povv is 
to fill, not to supply. So that the meaning is not, “he who sup- 
plies the place of the people," as the old Latin edition renders it ; 
but, “he who occupies the room, and sits amongst the laity,"— 
that is, he who is himself a layman and one of the common people. 
For formerly the minister did not sit promiscuously with the 


[! 18 is a misprint for 28. Harding's words are: “But St Paul, say they, 
requireth that the people give assent and conform themselves unto the 
priest, by answering amen to his prayer made in the congregation. Verily, 
in the primitive church this was necessary, when the faith was a-learning." 
Ap. Jewel, p. 317, ut supra.] 


17—2 


260 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


people, but in a place separate from the people and the rest of 
the multitude. This is what is referred to by the phrase, avazA- 
povv TOV TOTOV TOU iQuorov. And thus it is that Chrysostom, 
Theophylact, and C&cumenius interpret this place. ^ CEcumenius 
says that he fills the place of the unlearned, who eis idcwrnv TeAet, 
is ranked as an unlearned person; and immediately subjoins, 
“he calls him unlearned who is ranged in the rank of laymen!." 
Secondly, I say that there was no such person in the ancient 
church as they call a clerk, but that the whole congregation together 
answered Amen. So Jerome, in his second prologue to his com- 
mentary on the Galatians: * The whole church," says he, * re- 
plies with a thundering Amen?" A single clerk, unless he be a 
Stentor, cannot answer thus. So Chrysostom, as is manifest from 
his liturgy,— if indeed it be his, and not rather the work of some 
body else published under his name*. So Cyprian, in his discourse 
upon the Lord's prayer: * When the minister,” says he, “hath 
said, ‘ Lift up your heart,’ the whole people answer, ‘ We lift them 
up unto the Lord*'" But most plainly of all Justin Martyr, in his 
Second Apology for the Christians: was o Aaos éwevdnuet Aunv® 
“the whole people reply in token of assent, Amen.” These 
words, therefore, are not to be understood of such an imaginary 
clerk, answering in the name of the whole people, as the papists 
would have it. 

But the Jesuit Bellarmine, and lately our countrymen, the 
Rhemists, following his example, do not venture to trust to this 
answer, and therefore have invented another. They say that the 
apostle does not speak at all of divine service, or the public read- 
ing of the scripture, but of certain spiritual songs, which were 
wholly extraordinary, and in which the Christians of those times 
used to praise God, and give him thanks, and edify and comfort 
one another. These, they say, are mentioned, Ephes. v. 19 and 
Coloss. iii. 16, where the apostle bids the Christians to whom he 


[1 idvdrny Aéyew rov év rQ AaikQ taypare rerayuévovy.— T. 1. p. 560. Com- 
mentt. in N. T. Paris. 1631.] 

[? Tota ecclesia instar tonitrui reboat Amen, ut supra.] 

[3 See the excellent remarks of “the ever-memorable” Hales, at the end 
of the article Chrysostom, in Cave's Historia Literaria. ] 

[4 Ideo et sacerdos ante orationem prefatione premissa parat fratrum 
mentes dicendo, Sursum corda; ut dum respondet plebs, Habemus ad Domi- 
num, &c. p. 152, ed. Fell. Amstel. 1691.] 

[5 p. 98. E. Opp. Colon. 1686, or Paris, 1636.] 


x vui. | QUESTION THE SECOND. 261 


writes, to speak to each other “in psalms and hymns, and spiritual 
songs, singing and making melody in their hearts to the Lord;" 
and that such songs are spoken of in this chapter, ver. 26, where 
the apostle says, “when ye come together," éxao-os vuwy Wadpov 
éxei, “each of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, 
hath a revelation: let all things be done unto edification.” Finally, 
that Tertullian mentions these in his Apology, c. 395, and also 
other fathers: and that this cannot be understood of the public 
offices and prayers, because the public prayers at Corinth were 
then celebrated in the Greek language, which was understood by 
all, and no strange tongue; which Paul must have remembered 
very well. 

I answer: The apostle, I confess, speaks of those songs, and I 
am not unaware of the existence of such hymns formerly amongst 
Christians: but the apostle does not speak of them alone. For 
he expressly mentions prayers, ver. 14, edv pocevxeuat Tij 
yAwoon, “If I pray in an unknown tongue.” And although the 
Corinthian church then used the Greek language in the service of 
God, it does not therefore follow that these words of the apostle 
are not to be understood of the public offices and service.  Cer- 
tainly the whole discourse of the apostle is general. He speaks 
generally and in common of all the offices of the church, and 
condemns, on general grounds, the use of an unknown tongue in 
the church, whether in sermons, or in prayers, or in songs. And 
the first ground is this: an unknown tongue is useless; therefore 
it ought not to be used in the church. The antecedent is proved, 
verse 2, where he says, '' He that speaketh in an unknown tongue 
speaketh not te men, but to God; for no man understandeth him: 
howbeit in the Spirit he speaketh mysteries" 'O AaAcr yAwaon, 
* he that speaketh in a tongue," that is, an unknown tongue, says 
Thomas Aquinas’; “for no man heareth," that is, no one under- 
stands him. But in the church one should speak so as that not God 
alone, but men also may understand him. This he proves also in 
the sixth verse, where he says, “If I should come to you speaking 
with tongues” (though innumerable), “what shall I profit you?”—as 
much as to say, you will derive no advantage whatever from my 
discourse. And, verse 9, he says, edv ur evomuov Aóryov ome, 
“unless ye utter with the tongue words easy to be understood, how 


[9$ Post aquam manualem et lumina, ut quisque de scripturis sanctis vel 
de proprio ingenio potest, provocatur in medium Deo canere.—Apolog. c. 39. 
p. 112. Opp. Tertull. Part 1. ed. Leopold. Lipsiz. 1839.] 

[^ Comment. in loc.] 


262 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


shall it be understood what is spoken?”  &oeo0e yap eis aépa 
AaXovrres, “for ye shall be as if speaking into the air." From 
these passages it is manifest that the apostle’s meaning is this, that 
whatever is spoken in the church in an unknown tongue is spoken 
fruitlessly and in vain. 

But the Jesuit and the Rhemists, setting themselves in open 
opposition to the apostle, affirm that prayers, even when they 
are not understood, are very edifying, although perhaps they 
may be more edifying when they are understood. But the 
apostle’s words are ciear, and must always be pressed upon 
them, * What shall I profit you?”—as if he had said, I cannot be 
any way of use to you. So CEcumenius interprets those words, 
OUK €GOJAL UJALV exwedns. And * ye shall be speaking into the 
air," that is, fruitlessly and in vain: for so CÉcumenius, warn 
kal avedeNos. So also Chrysostom, in his 35th Homily upon 
this chapter: “Ye depart," says he, “ ovdév kepóavavres, deriving 
no advantage from a sound which ye do not understand!" But let 
us hear how the Jesuit proves that a prayer, though not under- 
stood, is useful to the people. Attend to his beautiful reason. The 
minister, says he, or priest, does not pray to the people, but to God 
for the people. Therefore, it is not necessary that the people 
should understand what he says, but it is sufficient that God him- 
self understands him. Now he understands all languages. This 
he illustrates by a comparison. As, says he, if one were to inter- 
cede with a king for a rustic, it is not necessary that the rustic 
should understand what his patron says to the king in his behalf, 
nor does he much care, provided only he obtain what he seeks; so 
it is not requisite that the people should understand those prayers 
which the minister presents to God in their name. Besides, the 
church prays even for the infidels and the absent. I answer, this 
reasoning of the Jesuit is inconsequential; and it is a bad argument 
to say, prayer is not made to the people, but to God for the people; 
therefore it is not necessary that the people should understand what 
the minister prays. For the minister is, as it were, the people's 
mouth. He prays, indeed, to God, but yet for the people; and 
although the people remain silent in their lips, while the minister 
prays, yet meanwhile they follow him, as he prays, in their hearts, 
and respond at the close, Amen; by which expression they shew 


[! *O 8€ A€yer Todd éamw . .. . yAerràv àv dkovadvres ovdev kepOávavres dme- 
AebaeaÓe. mds yap ard dovfjs, Hs od cuviere ;—Chrys. Opp. T. x. p. 233. The 
Homilies on 1 Cor. are to be found in T. tv. of Saville’s ed., and T. x. of the 
Paris edition of Fronto Duczeus, 1613. ] 


XVIII. | QUESTION THE SECOND. 263 


that the prayer is their own, and signify that they ask from God 
whatever the minister himself hath asked. Otherwise, if the peo- 
ple did not pray along with the minister, it would not be necessary 
for the people to be present, or assemble in the same place with the 
minister, but the minister alone might pray for the people to God 
in their absence. But prayers are publie, that is, prayers of the 
whole church. We see, therefore, that it is a foolish comparison 
which the Jesuit uses. For if the rustic, of whom he speaks, 
were to hear his advocate pleading his cause before the king in an 
unknown tongue, and speaking words which he did not understand, 
he might suspect that he was rather speaking against him than for 
him. So the people, when they hear the minister pray in an un- 
known tongue, may doubt whether he prays for them, or for others, 
or against them. What if even the priest himself do not under- 
stand what he is saying ? the possibility of which experience hath 
taught in the case of many priests of the Roman church. 

But the apostle, at verse 14, blames altogether all use of an 
unknown tongue in public prayers: ‘If I should pray," says he, 
“in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is un- 
fruitful.” And it is plain that he there speaks of public prayers ; 
first, because, verse 19, he says, €v rH exxAnoig, in the church ; 
secondly, because he speaks of such prayers as the people said 
Amen to, as a token of their assent, as is plain from verse 16; 
which is only done when the people are assembled together in 
one place. Therefore, unless the prayer be understood, the un- 
derstanding will be dxapzos, unfruitful; that is, no advantage 
will accrue to the church from the conceptions of your under- 
standing. The Jesuit and the papists give a wrong and foolish 
interpretation of that whole fourteenth verse, to this effect: “If 
I pray in a tongue, my mind or my understanding is not in- 
structed, because indeed it does not understand what I say: but 
meanwhile my spirit, that is, my affections,’—so they expound 
it,—''are edified." For example, says Bellarmine, if one were to 
recite the seven psalms, and not to understand what he was 
reciting, his understanding is not improved, yet his affections mean- 
while are improved. The sum, therefore, of this interpretation is 
this: i£ I pray in an unknown tongue, although I do not under- 
stand the words, yet my affections are thereby made better. 

I answer, in the first place, this is an utterly ridiculous inter- 
pretation. For he who recites any prayers or psalms in a language 
which he does not understand, is no more improved than if he had 
not recited them at all. His good affection, or desire of praying, is 


264 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ oH. 


not assisted by reading he knows not what. But if the affections of 
him who prays in an unknown tongue be good, and his reason no 
way benefited, because he does not understand his prayer; why 
does he not use a language with which he is acquainted, that he 
may derive a double advantage, both to his affections and to his un- 
derstanding? Secondly, the papists themselves confess that prayers 
expressed in a language known and understood are more useful and 
advantageous. Why then do they not pray in a known tongue ? 
For prayers should be made in that manner in which they are 
likely to be most useful to us. Now that prayers, when under- 
stood, are more useful than prayers not understood, the Jesuit con- 
cedes; and so does Harding, as may be seen, Art. rrr. Sect. 29.1 
And De Lyra also, upon 1 Cor. xiv., says that the people, if they 
understand the prayer of the priest, are * better brought to God, 
and answer Amen with more devotion.” If this be, as indeed it is, 
most true, we see that there are very just reasons why the people 
should understand their prayers: and yet Stapleton was not ashamed 
in his English book against the very learned Jewel to say, Art. m1. 
p. 75, that devotion is not assisted, but impeded, when the language 
is known and understood. Thirdly, since it is certain that prayer 
is a mode of speech, is it not ridiculous to pray in an unknown 
tongue? Who is there so destitute of common sense, as to choose, 
especially in the presence of others, to speak in such a language as 
either he himself is ignorant of, or the audience do not understand? 
Whence CEcumenius upon this chapter distinctly affirms prayer to be 
a kind of speech: mpocevx5, says he, éorw eldds Tt TOV AO*yov' 
and he interprets verse 14 thus: If I speak anything necessary 
and good, and expound it not to my audience, my spirit prays,— 
that is, I myself derive some advantage; but my understanding is 
unfruitful, that is, the conceptions of my understandimg bring no 
advantage to others. Hence it is manifest that the sense of these 
words is very different from what they suppose. So Chrysostom 
expounds this passage ; and Basil most expressly and plainly of all, 
in his Epitome of Definitions, Def. 278, * My understanding is un- 
fruitful, because no one is benefited ;" and he adds, that this is 
spoken of them who “ pray in an unknown tongue." I will subjoin 
the words, because they are very remarkable : TOUTO Tepl TeV ev 
yNosan aryvoounern TOIS a KOVOUCL Tas mpoceuxas avamenmovT ov. 
oray yap aryvwrTa 7 TOLS vapovct Td puara TS T pogevxrss 

[1 “I grant they cannot say ‘Amen’ to the blessing or thanksgiving of 


the priest so well as if they understood the Latin tongue perfectly." Apud 
Jewel, u£ supra, p. 318.] 


XVIII. | QUESTION THE SECOND. 265 
aKapTros €GTiV O VOUS TOU TpocEVKopEvoU {Novos wpedoupevov. 
In which words Basil distinctly affirms, that no benefit whatever can 
redound to the people from prayers which they do not understand. 
So Augustine, De Genesi ad Liter. Lib. xn. c. 8. “No one,” 
says he, *is edified by hearing what he does not understand?." 
Therefore from words not understood no fruit follows; and hence 
it is manifest, that all their prayers are unfruitful and odious 
to God. E 

But here the Jesuit urges us with many allegations to prove 
that prayers, although not understood, are nevertheless useful to us. 
These we must examine severally. First, he says, that the figures 
and ceremonies of the old law were useful to the Jewish people, 
although they did not understand them. I answer: In the first 
place, let the Jesuit produce any such express command of God for ' 
having prayers in a tongue not understood as the Jews had for 
those ceremonies, Secondly, although the Jews did not understand 
the figures and ceremonies of the law so clearly as we now under- 
stand them, yet they were not wholly ignorant of them ; and there 
were Levites from whom they could easily learn the whole design 
of their ceremonies, so as to understand it. 

The Jesuit's second objection is taken from .Augustine, de 
Baptism. contra Donat. Lib. vr. c. 25*, where he says that those 
prayers, which have something heretical mingled with them, may 
yet be profitable to one who recites them in simplicity, not know- 
ing what he says, and supposing that he prays rightly: whence 
the Jesuit infers that still more may good and holy prayers be 
beneficial to the people, although the people do not understand 
them. I answer: In the first place, we are not obliged to say 
anything now of those prayers which the church of Rome is wont 
to use; for many heretical matters might be pointed out in them. 
Secondly, Augustine does not speak of such prayers as are made 
in an unknown tongue, but of those in which something heretical 
is found mixed, which however is not perceived by those who use 
the prayers. This, he says, will be no way prejudicial to them, 
provided their intentions be pure; because, as he expresses it, 
“the affection of the suppliant overcomes the fault of the prayer*."? 
But what is this to the present question ? : 


[? p. 641. B. T. rr. Opp. Paris. 1618.] 

[3 Nemo eedificatur audiendo quod non intelligit. — T. rr. p. 302.] 
[* Augustin. Opp. T. 1x. p. 176.] 

[5 Quia plerumque precis vitium superat affectus precantis.] 


266 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ou. 


The third objection of the Jesuit is taken from Origen’s 
twentieth Homily upon Joshua: “We often, indeed, do not un- 
derstand what we utter, yet the Virtues understand it!" So, 
says the Jesuit, though the people do not understand the prayers 
which the priest utters, yet the Virtues understand them. I an- 
swer: Origen, in that place, does not speak of prayers, but of the 
reading of the scriptures; where he meets an objection which the 
laity are accustomed to make: the scriptures are difficult, and 
transcend our comprehension; therefore we need not read them. 
Now, although (says Origen) we often do not understand what 
we read, yet the Virtues understand it. 

The Jesuit’s fourth objection is to this effect: If the people 
should use no prayers which they do not understand, then they 
' should never recite the Psalms and the Prophets. I answer: The 
case of scripture is different from that of prayer. We must peruse 
the whole scripture, although we are not masters of its meaning, in 
order that we may, in the first place, understand the words, and 
then from the words be able to proceed to the sense. But we 
should only pray what we know; because prayer is a colloquy with 
God, and springs from our understanding. For we ought to know 
what we say, and not merely, as the Jesuit pretends, know that 
what we do appertains to the honour of God. Secondly, the 
reason why we understand so little when we read, is to be found 
in our own fault, and not in any obscurity of scripture. 

The Jesuit’s fifth and last objection is taken from St Antony, 
as reported by Cassian, who says that prayer is then perfect when 
the mind is so affected, while we pray, as not itself to understand 
its own words. I answer: I wonder how this, be it what it may, 
can be made to serve the cause in hand. For Antony does not 
say that we should pray in an unknown tongue; but that, when 
we pray, we should not fix our attention on the words, but have 
the mind absorbed, as it were, in divine meditation, and occupied 
in thoughts about the things rather than the words, If the feelings 


[! The Greek is preserved in the Philocalia, c. 12, p. 40, ed. Spencer. 
Elcl yap rwes Suvapets éy jpiv, àv ai pev kpeirroves 0ià robrov r&v oiovel em@dav 
rpéQovrat, owvyyeveis odaar abrais, Kal, jv p) voovvTwy, éketvae Tas Ovvápets, 
voovoas rà Aeydpeva, Suvatwrépas ev july yiverOa. The whole chapter is a very 
curious discourse, in which Origen suggests that the mere words of scripture 
may have a beneficial effect, after the manner of a spell, upon the man who 
reads them, through certain spiritual powers which he supposes to be in 
intimate contact with our souls. The same passage is to be found in 
Huetius’ Origen, T. 1. p. 27. C.] 


XVIII. | QUESTION THE SECOND. 267 


be sincere, we need not doubt but that the Holy Spirit will suggest 
and dictate words to us, and guide us in our prayers. 

Thus then what this argument of the apostle’s proves remains 
unshaken, that all prayers made in an unknown tongue are un- 
fruitful. f 

The second general argument of the apostle is taken from those 
words which are contained in ver. 11: “If I know not the meaning 
of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh a barbarian, and he 
that speaketh shall be a barbarian to me." Therefore, if the 
minister shall pray in an unknown tongue, he and the congregation 
shall be barbarians to each other. Now this should not be in the 
church, that the minister should be a barbarian to the people, or 
the people to the minister. Therefore, the minister ought not to 
pray in an unknown tongue. The Jesuit does not touch this argu- 
ment. The Rhemists pretend that the apostle does not here mean 
the three learned languages, that is, the Hebrew, Greek, and 
Latin, but others. They contend, therefore, that not he who 
speaks Latin, when the people do not understand it, is a barbarian ; 
but he who speaks English, French, Spanish, or any vulgar tongue 
which is not understood by the audience. I answer, that the 
apostle speaks in general of all languages, which the people do not 
understand. ‘If I speak in a tongue," says he, that is, in an un- 
known tongue, whatever it be. For those who speak with the 
greatest purity and elegance, if they speak not what the people 
understand, are barbarians to the people. Even Cicero himself or 
Demosthenes shall be barbarians, if they harangue the people in an 
unknown tongue which the people do not understand, however 
sublimely they may discourse. Thus also, if the people know not 
the Latin tongue, whoever uses it shall be a barbarian to them, 
since they are not able to judge of it. The poet Ovid, when 
banished to Pontus, says of himself, Trist. Lib. v. Eleg. 11?: 


Barbarus hie ego sum, quia non intelligor ulli. 


Anacharsis, when an Athenian reproachfully called him a barbarian, 
is said to have replied: ** And ye Athenians are barbarians to the 
Seythians:" éuoi mavtes "EAXgves okvOi(ovow. So Theodoret, 
Therapeut. Orat. Lib. v. ; in which same place he observes that this 
is what St Paul says, “I shall be to him that speaketh a barbarian?." 
Though men were to talk Attie, yet Anacharsis truly pronounces 


[? Trist. Lib. v. Eleg. x. 36.] 
[? Toüro yàp drexvós €otke rois eiprpévows vmó Tod r)juerépov akvrorópov* K.T.A. 


p. 81. 1. 53. ed. Sylburg. 1592.] 


268 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


them barbarians to the Scythians, because the Scythians knew 
nothing of the Attic tongue. And Cicero, in the fifth book of his 
Tusculan Questions says: “In those languages which we understand 
not, we are just the same as deaf!." If deaf, then certainly it is 
not too much to say barbarians. Chrysostom interprets this pas- 
sage in precisely the same way, and says that the word barbarian 
is used “not in reference to the nature of the speech, but with 
reference to our ignorance?" And so also CEcumenius. But, to 
silence our Rhemists with the testimony of papists, Catharinus writes 
thus upon the place: “ He is here called a barbarian, whose tongue 
is so diverse that he cannot be understood: for whoever is not 
understood is a barbarian to the auditor?" Then he produces the 
verse of Ovid which we cited just now. He determines, therefore, 
that the popish priests are barbarians to the people, however they 
speak Latin. How well they speak it, makes no difference in this 
ease. Certainly they do not speak better Latin than Ovid, who yet 
says that he was a barbarian to the people of Pontus. Now we 
have said enough upon this place of the apostle against the Jesuit 
and the Rhemists. 

Next comes our sECOND argument, which is taken from other 
words of the apostle in this same chapter. All things, says he, 
l Cor. xiv. 40, should be done in the church *decently and in 
order,” «ara crà£w. Now it is most grossly repugnant to good 
order, that the minister should pray in an unknown tongue. For 
so the people, though assembled for public prayer, are compelled to 
pray, not publicly, but privately : and the custom hath prevailed in 
the popish churches, that the people recite none but private prayers 
in the church where publie prayer is required. Yea, thus not only 
the people, but the minister, who ought to offer up the publie 
prayers, utters only private ones: for the people, since they do 
not understand the liturgy, do not pray publicly ; and, consequently, 
the minister must needs pray alone by himself. For it does not 
presently follow that prayers are publie, because they are made in 
a publie place; but those are publie, which are made by the united 
desires and wills of the whole church. Hence the minister should 


[! Omnesque itidem nos in iis linguis quas non intelligimus surdi pro- 
fecto sumus.—c. xi. 1. Opp. Ciceron. T. vin. p. 559. ed. Lallemand. Paris. 
1768. Barbonw.] 

[2 Oi mapa ry hiow ris ovis adda rapa THY )perépav ayvoiav. 'T. VI. p. 477.] 

[? Barbarus hoe in loco is dicitur, qui lingue differt varietate, ut non 
intelligatur: quilibet enim qui non intelligitur barbarus est illi qui audit. 
p. 193. Paris. 1566.] | 


XVIII. ] QUESTION THE SECOND. 269 


not pray in the church in an unknown tongue, because he, in so 
doing, makes that private which ought to have been public, and 
violates good order. 

Our THIRD argument is to this effect: The papists themselves 
know and concede that the Armenians, Egyptians, Muscovites and 
Ethiopians perform their services in the vulgar tongue, and hold 
their prayers in their own native languages. Why then, if they do 
right, should not other churches do the same? But the Jesuit 
objects, that they are either heretics or schismatics; and that, 
therefore, it is no great matter what they do. I answer, that 
there are, indeed, in those churches many and great errors; yet 
neither more nor greater than in the church of Rome. These 
churches are condemned by the papists, because they will not 
submit to the Roman pontiff, or hold any such communion with 
him. They are extensive churches, and perhaps more extensive 
than the popish party, however they boast of their extension. All 
these are ignorant of the Latin tongue, and use their own language 
in their services; and in this matter we would rather resemble 
them than the papists. The same is the case of the Indians, as 
Eckius testifies in his common places: ** We deny not that it is 
permitted to the southern Indians to perform divine service in 
their own language; which custom their clergy still observe+.” 

Our rounTH argument stands thus: /Eneas Sylvius, in his book 
on the origin of the Bohemians, c. xr, relates, that Cyril and 
Methodius allowed the Moravians to use their own language in 
their service*. I ask, therefore, why the same might not be 
allowed to other churches? or why other churches should not do 
that which they know to be advantageous to them? The Jesuit 
objects, that Cyril and Methodius converted all the Moravians to- 
gether to the faith, and that there was just cause then for that 
permission, because ministers could not be found competent to 
perform the service in Latin. I answer, if this were needful at 
first, then it follows that the service may be performed in the 


[4 Non negamus Indis australibus permissum ut in lingua sua rem divi- 
nam facerent, quod clerus eorum hodie observat. c. xxxiv. Colon. 1532.] 

[5 Referunt Cyrillum, cum Rome ageret, Romano pontifici supplicasse ut 
Sclavorum lingua ejus gentis hominibus, quam baptizaverat, rem divinam 
faciens uti posset. De qua re dum in sacro senatu disputaretur, essentque 
non pauci contradictores, auditam vocem tanquam de colo in hee verba 
missam: * Omnis spiritus laudet Dominum, et omnis lingua confiteatur ei." 
Indeque datum Cyrillo indultum. En, Sylv. Hist. Bohem. c. xiii. p. 91. Basil. 
I8TL.] 


270 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


vulgar tongue; which he had before said ought not to be done, 
because the dignity of the sacred offices requires a more majestic 
language. If this be a good reason, there can be no just cause for 
performing them in the vernacular. What he adds about the lack 
of ministers is an invention of his own. 

Our FIFTH argument is taken from the authority of the emperor 
Justinian; who (Lib. de cap. Eccl. c. 123)! orders that the minister 
in the church should pronounce every thing with a clear voice, in 
order that the people may hear and answer Amen. Harding’, 
Art. ir. Sect. 14, objects, firstly, that Justinian speaks of a “ clear 
voice,” to let us know that it is vocal, and not mental, prayers that 
are required. But I answer, the reason subjoined removes all 
doubt on that score; for he adds, that the people may hear, and 
be inflamed to devotion, and answer Amen. Secondly, he objects 
that this rule was only enjoined upon the Greeks, not on others. 
I answer: Justinian was not merely emperor of Greece, but of all 
Europe; and therefore he proposed his laws not only to the 
prelates of Constantinople, but to those of Rome also, as is manifest 
from that same chapter: ** We order, therefore, the most blessed 
archbishops and patriarchs, that is to say, of old Rome and of Con- 
stantinople?:;" where expressly and by name he prescribes rules to 
the bishop of Rome. Thirdly, he objects that these words are not 
found in ancient copies. I answer, they are, however, found in all 
the Greek copies, which are more to be trusted than the Latin 
ones. And Gregory Holoander hath them also in his Latin ver- 
sion, who certainly faithfully translated the Greek text. 

Our six TH and last argument is founded upon the authority and 
testimony of the fathers. First, Basil the Great, in Ep. 63, to the 
clergy of the church of Neocssarsa, writes thus: ‘As the day 
dawns, all together, as with one voice and one heart, offer a Psalm 
of confession to the Lord, and each in his own words professes re- 
pentance." And lest any should suppose that this was spoken only 
of the Greeks, he subjoins : ** These constitutions are observed with 
one accord by all the churches of God.” There follows also in the 
same place: “If on account of these you fly from us, you must fly 
also the Egyptians, either Lybia, the Thebeans, the Palestinians, 
the Arabians, the Phoenicians, the Syrians, and those who dwell 


[1 Justinian. Novell. Const. 137 (or 123) pp. 409, 10. Basil. 1561.] 

[2 Ap. Jewel, p. 284, ut supra. | 

[3 keAevopev Toívvv Tovs pakapuorárovs dpxiemiakómOvs kai marpidpxas, TOU- 
TEOTL THS mpeaBurépas '"Póugs kai KevoravrwovmnóAecs.] 


XVII. | QUESTION THE SECOND. 271 


upon the Euphrates; in a word, all who have any value for watch- 
ing, and prayer, and common psalmody;" aap ois arypumvia, 
Kal Tpogevyai, Kal at Kowal Warmwdiar TetiunvtTa. To the 
same effect it is that this same Basil (Hom. 4. in Hexaem. at the 
end) compares the church to the sea: for as (says he) the waves 
roar when driven upon the coast, so the church “sends forth the 
mingled sound of men and women and children in prayer to God5.” 
We perceive, therefore, that it was the custom of the primitive 
church for the whole people to combine their desires and assent 
with the prayers of the minister, and not, as is with the papists 
(amongst whom the priest alone performs his service in an unknown 
tongue), to remain silent, or murmur their own indefinite private 
prayers to themselves. Ambrose hath a similar sentence, Hexaem. 
Lib. 11.6 Augustine, in his book de Magistro, c. 1, says that we 
should pray with the heart, because the sacrifice of righteousness 
is offered “in the temple of the mind and in the chambers of the 
heart. Wherefore,” says he, “there is no need of speech, that is, 
of audible words, when we pray, unless, as in the case of the 
priests, for the sake of denoting what we mean?" But why then 
must we speak? Augustine answers, “not that God, but that 


[4 *Hpépas 50m vmoXaumo)ons, mavres kow;j, os €& évós oTÓparos Kal puas 
kapdias, tov ths éfouokoygseos YraAuóv avapépovot TQ Kvupío, idia éavràv 
(kacros rà p5para Ths peravoías mowüpevot...émi roUrots Aowrüv el ras dmo- 
Qevyere, hevEerOe pev Alyumrious, pev&eabe 0€ kai A«8vas audorépovs, OnBaiovs, 
IaAauwrívous, “ApaBas, Poivixas, Zópovs, kal rovs mpós TQ Evdparet karoki- 
opevous, kal mavtas ára£arAós k.r.A.—Dasil. Opp. Paris. 1618. T. rr. p. 844. A. 
The clause, id:a éavróv, &c., should rather be rendered, “each making the 
words of repentance his own:" but in the text the common Latin version 
quoted by Whitaker is followed, * Suis quisque verbis resipiscentiam pro- 
fitetur."] 

[5 ei d€ Oadacoa Kady kal émawer? TQ OG, THs obyl kaXMov ékkNgaías 
rovavtTns GÜAMoyos, €v 7] avppwyrs "Xos, otóv Twos küparos riv». mpocqQepopérvov, 
avdpav kal yuvatkov kat vymiev Kata Tas mpds Oeóv rnuóv Senoes ékmépmera; 
—lIbid. T. 1. p. 53. p.] 

[€ Quid aliud ille concentus undarum, nisi quidam concentus est plebis? 
Unde bene mari plerumque comparatur ecclesia, que primo ingredientis 
populi totis vestibulis undas vomit; deinde, in oratione totius plebis tan- 
quam undis refluentibus stridet, cum responsoriis psalmorum, cantus viro- 
rum, mulierum, virginum, parvulorum, consonas undarum fragor resultat. 
—Hexaem. rn. eap. v. § 23. Opp. Ambros. Paris. 1836. Pars 1, p. 97.] 

[7 Quare non opus est locutione cum oramus, id est, sonantibus verbis, 
nisi forte sicut sacerdotes faciunt, significande mentis sue causa.—T. 1. 
col. 542.] 


272 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


men may hear us.” But why ought men to hear us? “In order,” 
says Augustine, “that they, being moved to consent by our sug- 
gestion, may have their minds fixed upon God." But the people 
cannot be thus fixed upon God by the suggestion of the priest, un- 
less they understand what is suggested by the priest. This consent 
depends upon the suggestion; but a suggestion without being un- 
derstood is vain and futile. The same Augustine writes thus, in 
his second exposition of Psalm xviii: ‘Since we have prayed the 
Lord to cleanse us from our secret faults, and spare his servants 
from strange ones, we ought to understand what this is, so as to 
sing with human reason, and not, as it were, with the voice of 
birds. For blackbirds,’ says he, “and parrots, and crows and 
magpies, and such like birds, are frequently taught by men to 
utter sounds which they do not understand. But to sing with 
the understanding is granted by the divine will, not to birds, but 
to men! Thus Augustine; whence we perceive that the people, 
when they sing or pray what they do not understand (as is the 
custom everywhere in the church of Rome) are more like black- 
birds, or parrots, or crows, or magpies, or such like birds, which 
are taught to utter sounds which they understand not, than to men. 
Thus Augustine deems it absurd and repugnant to the common 
prudence of mankind, that the people should not understand their 
prayers; which we see taking place everywhere in the popish sy- 
nagogues. And the same Augustine, upon Psalm Ixxxix.: “ Blessed 
is the people which understand the joyful sound. Let us hasten 
to this blessedness; let us understand the joyful sound, and not 
pour it forth without understanding." 

Chrysostom, in his 35th Hom. upon 1 Corinthians, says, 
that he who speaks in an unknown tongue is not only “useless 
(axpnotos) and a barbarian?” to others, but even to himself, if he 
do not understand what he says; and that if he understand it, but 
others not, small fruit can be gained by the rest from his words. 


[! Deprecati Dominum ut ab occultis mundet nos, et ab alienis parcat 
servis suis, quid hoc sit intelligere debemus, ut humana ratione, non quasi 
avium voce, cantemus. Nam et meruli et psittaci et corvi et pice et hujus- 
modi volucres seepe ab hominibus docentur sonare quod nesciunt. Scientes 
autem cantare non avi, sed homini, divina voluntate concessa est.—T. Iv. 
e. 8. The reference is to the vulgate version of Psal. xix. 12, 13. Ab oc- 
cultis meis munda me, et ab alienis parce servo tuo: which follows the LXX. 
amd adXotpiav deioa rod 0ovAov cov. They read ale for D"D.] 

[? Tom. x. p. 323.] | 


XVIII. | QUESTION THE SECOND, 273 


Ambrose says upon 1 Cor. xiv.: “If ye come together for the 
edification of the church, the things spoken should be such as the 
auditors may understand?." Jerome upon 1 Cor. xiv. says: “ Every 
speech is deemed barbarous that is not understood.” The Latin, 
therefore, is barbarous to those who understand it not, that is, to 
the whole common people of all nations: and when the apostle 
condemns a barbarous speech in the church, he plainly condemns 
the use of the Latin tongue in the service. Cassiodorus upon Psalm 
xlvi.: * When we raise a psalm, we should not only sing, but 
understand it. For no one can do that wisely which he does not 
understand*&" Isidore of Seville, de Eccles. Offic. Lib. r. c. 10: 
* [t is fitting that when the psalms are sung, they should be sung 
by all; when prayers are made, they should be made by all; when 
the lesson is read, all keeping silence, it should equally be heard 
by all" The fathers of the council of Aix, c. 132, say that, of 
those who sing in the church * the mind should be in concord with 
the voice;" and, in the following chapter, that such should read, 
chant, and sing in the church, “as by the sweetness of their reading 
and melody may both charm the learned and instruct the illi- 
terate9." Jacobus Faber, in his Commentary upon 1 Cor. xiv., 
hath these words: * The greatest part of the world now, when 
ihey pray, I know not whether they pray with the spirit, but 
they certainly do not with the understanding; for they pray in a 
tongue which they do not understand. Yet Paul approves most 
that the faithful should pray both with the spirit and the under- 
standing; and those who pray so, as is the general practice, edify 
themselves but little by the prayer, and cannot edify others at all 
by their speech?" And Cardinal Cajetan, as in many other things 


[3 Si utique ad sedificandum ecclesiam convenitis, ea dici debent qu 
intelligant audientes.—Pseud-Ambros. in 1 Cor. xiv. p. 157. App. Opp. 
T. 1. Par. 1690.] 

[4 Adjecit, Psallite sapienter; ut non solum cantantes, sed intelligentes 
psallere debeamus. Nemo enim sapienter quicquam facit quod non in- 
telligit.—p. 157. T. r. Opp. Rothomag. 1679.] 

[5 Oportet ut quando psallitur, psallatur ab omnibus; cum oratur, oretur 
ab omnibus; quando lectio legitur, facto silentio seque audiatur ab om- 
nibus.—Opp. p. 393. Col. Agr. 1617.] 

[6 Labbe, Concill. vii. 966.] - 

[7 Maxima pars hominum cum nunc orat, nescio si spiritu, tamen mente 
non orat: nam in lingua orat quam non intelligit. | Attamen maxime 
Paulus probat ut fideles pariter spiritu orent, et mente: et qui sic ut passim 


[WHITAKER. | 


274 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. xvi. 


he blames the institutions of the Roman church, so indicates plainly 
that he is not pleased with the strange language in the service, 
in his Comment upon 1 Cor. xiv. For thus he speaks: * From 
what Paul here teaches us we find, that it is more for the edification 
of the church that the publie prayers, which are said in the audience 
of the people, should be said in the common language of the clergy 
and people, than that they should be said in Latin'.” Here Catha- 
rinus? could not restrain himself from pouring forth many insults 
upon his own cardinal; and he maintains that this is an invention of 
Luther's, or rather of the devil speaking in Luther?: which yet is 
plainly a doctrine and precept of the apostles, in spite of the blas- 
phemies of this foul papist. Nicolas de Lyra, in his Postil upon 
1 Cor. xiv., writes frankly thus: ** But if the people understand 
the prayer or benediction of the priest, they are better turned 
towards God, and more devoutly answer, Amen.” And presently 
he subjoins : ** What profit does the simple and ignorant folk gain ? 
As much as to say, nothing or little; because they know not how 
to conform themselves to thee, the minister of the church, by an- 
swering, Amen. On which account in the primitive church the 
benedictions and other common offices were performed in the vulgar 
tongue?," 

And so we have arrived at the conclusion of the Second 
Question. 


solent orant, parum se oratione sdificant, et alios nequaquam sua sermone 
edificare valent.—Fol. 101. Paris. 1517.] 

[1 Ex hac Pauli doctrina habetur, quod melius ad ecclesi: sedificationem 
est orationes publicas, que audiente populo dicuntur, dici lingua communi 
clericis et populo, quam dici Latine.—Fol. 158. 2. Paris. 1571.] 

(2 Que primo a Luthero, imo a diabolo in Luthero loquente, inventa est. 
—p. 57. Catharin. Annotat. in Cajet. Comm. Lugd. 1542.] TOU 

[3 Quod si populus intelligit orationem seu benedictionem sacerdotis, 
melius reducitur in Deum, et devotius respondet Amen. .... Quid proficit 
populus simplex et non intelligens? Quasi dicat, nihil, aut modicum ; 
quod nescit se conformare tibi, qui es minister ecclesize, respondendo Amen. 
Propter quod in primitiva ecclesia benedictiones et cetera communia fiebant 
in vulgari.—p. 55. 2. Biblia cum gloss. ord. et post. Lyr. T. vi. Venet. 1588.] 





THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. 
QUESTION III. 


CONCERNING THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE. 





CHAPTER I. 


OF THE STATE OF THE QUESTION, 


In commencing this question, we must return to those words of 
Christ, which are contained in John v. 39, epevvate cas yypadas, 
* Search the scriptures.” In these words Christ hath referred and 
remitted us to the scriptures: whence it follows that they are de- 
serving of the greatest trust, dignity, and authority. The question, 
therefore, between us and the papists 1s, whence they have received 
such great authority, and what it is, and on what this whole weight 
of such divine dignity and authority depends. The subject is diffi- 
cult and perplexed; nor do I know whether there is any other 
controversy between us of greater importance. Though desirous in 
every question to draw the doctrine of our adversaries from the 
decrees of the council of Trent, I am unable to do so in the present 
ease; for the council of Trent hath made no decree or definition 
upon this question. The opinion of the papists must, therefore, be 
discovered from their books. The Jesuit does not treat this ques- 
tion in this place, but elsewhere in the controversy concerning 
councils; and even there but briefly and superficially. But, since 
it appertains to the nature and efficacy of scripture, to know what 
its authority is, I have judged it proper to be treated here. 

It would be too troublesome and laborious to enumerate the 
opinions of all the papists severally upon this matter, and to inquire 
what every one may have written upon it. Those who are esteemed 
the most skilful and the best learned, now deny that they make the 
scripture inferior to the church; for so Bellarmine and others openly 
profess, and complain that they are treated injuriously by us in 
this respect. But, that they make the authority of scripture de- 
pend upon the church, and so do in fact make the scripture inferior 

18—2 


276 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


to the church, and that we do them no injustice in attributing this 
to them, will appear from the words of their own theologians, and 
those not the meanest.  Eckius, in his Enchiridion de Authorit. 
Eccles. Respons. 3, says that “the church is more ancient than 
the scriptures, and that the scripture is not authentic but by the 
authority of the church!" And that this answer is wonderfully 
acceptable to the papists appears from the marginal note, where 
this argument is styled * Achilles pro Catholicis." How well this 
reason deserves to be considered Achillean, will appear hereafter. 
The same author places this assertion amongst heretical proposi- 
tions, “ The authority of scripture is greater than that of the 
church,” and affirms the contrary proposition to be catholic: which 
agrees with the assertion so often repeated in the canon law, “ The 
church is above the scripture.” Pighius, de Hierarch. Eccles. Lib. 
1. €. 2, disputes against the scripturarians (as he calls us), main- 
taining that the authority of scripture cannot be defended without 
the tradition of the church; and affirms that the whole authority 
of scripture, with regard to us, depends upon ecclesiastical tradition, 
and that we cannot believe the scriptures upon any other grounds, 
but because the church confirms it by its testimony. His express 
words are these: “ All the authority which the scripture now hath 
with us, depends necessarily upon the authority of the church?." 
So, says he, it happens that the gospel of Mark, who was not an 
apostle, is received, while that of Thomas, who was an apostle, is 
not received. Hence also, he says, it hath come to pass that the 
gospel of Luke, who had not seen Christ, is retained, while the 
gospel of Nicodemus, who had seen Christ, is rejected. And he 
pursues this discourse to a great length. One Hermann, a most 
impudent papist, affirms that the scriptures are of no more avail 
than /Esop's fables, apart from the testimony of the church?. As- 
suredly this assertion is at once impudent and blasphemous, Yet, 


[! c. 1. p. 6. Antwerp. 1533.] 

[? Omnis qux nune apud nos est scripturarum auctoritas ab ecclesiz 
auctoritate dependet necessario.—Pigh. Hierar. Eccles. Assertio. p. 17. Col. 
Agr. .1572.] 

[? Casaubon, Exercit. Baron. I. xxxiii. had, but doubtfully, attributed 
this to Pighius: but in a MS. note preserved in Primate Marsh’s library, at 
St Sepulchre's, Dublin, he corrects himself thus: * Non est hie, sed quidam 
Hermannus, ait Wittakerus in Prefat. Controvers. 1. Quest. 3. p. 314.” 
If a new edition of those Exercitations be ever printed, let not these MSS. 
of that great man, which, with many other valuable records, we owe to the 
diligence of Stillingfleet and the munificence of Marsh, be forgotten. ] 


Ee | QUESTION THE THIRD. - 277 


when it was objected to them by Brentius in the Wittemberg Con- 
fession, it was defended as a pious speech by Hosius, de Authorit. 
Script. Lib. u1.: where also he affirms that the scriptures would 
have no great weight, except for the testimony of the church. 
*In truth," says he, * unless the authority of the church had 
taught us that this was canonical scripture, it would have very 
slight weight with us*.” From this every one must see that the 
opinion of the papists is, that the authority of the church is really 
greater than that of scripture. 

But other papists now begin to speak with somewhat greater 
caution and accuracy. Cochleeus, in his Reply to Bullinger, chap. 
2, avails himself of a distinction. He says that the scriptures 
are indeed in themselves firm, clear, perfect, and most worthy 
of all credit, as the work of God; but that, with regard to us, 
they need the approval and commendation of the church, on ac- 
count of the depravity of our minds and the weakness of our 
understandings. And this he confirms by the authority of Ari- 
stotle, who says, in his Metaphysics, that “ our understanding is to 
divine things as the eyes of owls to the light of the sun.” So Canus, 
in his Common Places, Lib. 11. c. 8, says that we cannot be certain 
that the scriptures come from God, but by the testimony of the 
church. So our countryman Stapleton explains this controversy 
through almost his whole ninth book of Doctrinal Principles, In 
the first chapter he examines the state of the question; where he 
says that the question is not, whether the scripture be in itself 
sacred and divine, but how we come to know that it is sacred and 
divine: and therefore he blames Calvin for stating the question 
wrongly, when he says that the papists affirm, that it depends 
upon the church what reverence is due to scripture. For (says 
he) the scriptures are in themselves worthy of all reverence, but, 
with regard to us, they would not by themselves have been held in 
such honour. This, says he, is a very different thing from making 
it depend upon the church, what books should be reckoned in the 
canon of scripture. The one (he adds) relates to the reverence due 
to scripture in itself; the other to the same reverence in respect to 
us. But, I beseech you, what is the difference between these two 


[4 Revera nisi nos ecclesi: doceret auctoritas hane scripturam esse ca- 
nonicam, perexiguum apud nos pondus haberet.—p. 269. Opp. Antw. 1571.] 
[5 demep yap kai rà ràw vuKTepidov Oppara mpós To déyyos eye Td pel 
zjpépav, oUro kal Tis nperépas Yrvxfjs 6 vois mpós rà Tj doe Qavepórara 


márrov.—Motaphys. Lib. 1. c. 1. Opp. T. 1r. p. 856, B. Paris. 1619.] 


278 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


opinions, It depends upon the judgment of the church what rever- 
ence is due to scripture; and, It depends upon the judgment of 
the church what books are to be received into the canon; since 
that sacred scripture, to which divine reverence is due, is to be 
found only in the canonical books? The papists affirm the latter 
opinion; therefore, also the first. The same is the opinion of the 
Jesuit, Controv. de Concil. Quest. 2; where he says that the scrip- 
tures do not need the approbation of the church ; and that, when it 
is said that the church approves them, it is only meant that it de- 
clares these scriptures to be canonical To the same effect Andra- 
dius also writes, Defens. Trid. Con. Lib. ur, that the church does 
not give to scripture its authority, but only declares to us how 
great its authority is in itself. This opinion might appear tolerable, 
—that scripture is in itself a sacred and divine thing, but is not 
recognised as such by us, except upon the testimony of the church. 
But in the second book the same author speaks much more per- 
versely : ‘ Nor is there in the books themselves, wherein the sacred 
mysteries are written, any divinity to compel us by a sort of re- 
ligious awe to believe what they contain; but the efficacy and 
dignity of the church, which teaches us that those books are sacred, 
and commends to us the faith and piety of the ancient fathers, are 
such that no one can oppose them without the deepest brand of 
impiety!.” Canisius, in his Catechism, c. 3, sect. 16, says that the 
authority of the church is necessary to us, firstly, in order that 
* we may certainly distinguish the true and canonical scriptures 
from the spurious? They mean, then, that the scripture depends 
upon the church, not in itself, but in respect of us. 

And now we are well nigh in possession of the true state of 
the question, which is itself no slight advantage: for they speak in 
so perplexed, obscure, and ambiguous a manner, that one cannot 
easily understand what it is they mean. Now these assertions 
might seem not to deserve any severe reprehension,—that the 
scripture hath authority in itself, but that it cannot be certain to 
us except through the church. But we shall presently shew where 
the true steps and turning point of the controversy lie. 


[2 Neque enim in ipsis libris, quibus sacra mysteria scripta sunt, quic- 
quam inest divinitatis, que nos ad credendum que illis continentur religione 
aliqua constringat: sed ecclesie, que codices illos sacros esse docet et 
antiquorum patrum fidem et pietatem commendat, tanta est vis et am- 
plitudo, ut illis nemo sine gravissima impietatis nota possit repugnare. ] 

[? Opus Catech. p. 156. Colon. 1577.] 


1.] "QUESTION THE THIRD. 279 


Meanwhile let us see what they mean by this word, the “church.” 
Now, under the name of the church the papists understand not only 
that church which was in the times of the apostles (for Thomas of 
Walden is blamed on that account by Canus, Loc. Comm. Lib. rm. 
c. 8, and also by Stapleton, Doctrin. Princip. Lib. 1x. c. 12, 13), 
but the succeeding, and therefore the present church; yet not the 
whole people, but the pastors only. Canus, when he handles this 
question, understands by the church sometimes the pastors, some- 
times councils, sometimes the Roman pontiff. Stapleton, Lib. rx. 
c. 1, applies this distinction: The church, as that term denotes the 
rulers and pastors of the faithful people, not only reveres the scrip- 
ture, but also by its testimony commends, delivers down, and con- 
signs it, that is to say, with reference to the people subject to 
them: but, as the church denotes the people or the pastors, as 
members and private persons, it only reveres the scripture. And 
when the church consigns the scripture, it “does not make it au- 
thentic from being doubtful absolutely, but only in respect of us, 
nor does it make it authentic absolutely, but only in respect of us.” 
Hence we see what they understand by the term the church, and 
how they determine that the scripture is consigned and approved 
by the church. 

We will now briefly explain our own opinion upon this matter. 
It does not appear to be a great controversy, and yet it is the 
greatest. In the first place, we do not deny that it appertains to 
the church to approve, acknowledge, receive, promulge, commend 
the scriptures to all its members; and we say that this testi- 
mony is true, and should be received by all. We do not, there- 
fore, as the papists falsely say of us, refuse the testimony of the 
church, but embrace it. But we deny that we believe the scrip- 
tures solely on account of this commendation of them by the church. 
For we say that there is a more certain and illustrious testimony, 
whereby we are persuaded of the sacred character of these books, 
that is to say, the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, without 
which the commendation of the church would have with us no 
weight or moment. The papists, therefore, are unjust to us, when 
they affirm that we reject and make no account of the authority of 
the church. For we gladly receive the testimony of the church, 
and admit its authority ; but we affirm that there is a far different, 
more certain, true, and august testimony than that of the church. 
The sum of our opinion is, that the scripture is avtdmaros, that 
is, hath all its authority and credit from itself; is to be acknow- 


280 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


ledged, is to be received, not only because the church hath so deter- 
mined and commanded, but because it comes from God ; and that 
we certainly know that it comes from God, not by the phar but by 
the Holy Ghost. Now by the church we understand not, as they do, 
the pastors, bishops, councils, pope; but the whole multitude of the 
faithful. For this whole multitude hath learned from the Holy Spirit 
that this scripture is sacred, that these books are divine. This per- 
suasion the Holy Spirit hath sealed in the minds of all the faithful. 

The state of the controversy, therefore, is this: Whether we 
should believe that these scriptures which we now have are sacred 
and canonical merely on account of the church’s testimony, or rather 
on account of the internal persuasion of the Holy Spirit; which, as 
it makes the scripture canonical and authentic in itself, makes it 
also to appear such to us, and without which the testimony of the 
church is dumb and inefficacious. 





CHAPTER IL. 


HOW MUCH AUTHORITY, WITH RESPECT TO SCRIPTURE, IS AT- 
TRIBUTED BY THE PAPISTS AND BY US TO THE CHURCH. 


Ir remains now that we proceed to the arguments of the 
papists. But first, we must explain what authority, both in their 
opinion and in ours, the church exercises with respect to scripture. 

Of all the popish authors, Stapleton hath treated this question 
with the greatest acuteness: we shall, therefore, examine him specially 
in this debate. He, Doctr. Princip. Lib. rx. cap. 2, makes use of a 
distinction which he hath taken from Cochleus. He says, as we 
have touched before, that the scripture must be considered under a 
twofold aspect, in itself, and relatively to us. In itself, and of 
itself, he says that it is always sacred on account of its author, 
* whether it be received by the church, or whether it be not 
received.” For though, says he, the church can never reject the 
scripture, because it comes from God; yet it may sometimes not 
receive some part of scripture. But, I pray you, what is the 
difference between not receiving and rejecting? Absolutely none. 
He who does not receive God rejects him; and so the church 
plainly rejected those scriptures which formerly it did not receive. 
For I would fain know why it did not receive them. Certainly 
the reason was, because it judged them spurious, wherein it appears 


n.] | QUESTION THE THIRD. 281 


it might be mistaken. But Stapleton goes on to say, that the 
church, exercising its just privilege, might sometimes not receive 
some books ; and he shews that some doctrines are now received by 
the later churches which were not received formerly. . These if 
any one were now to reject, after the church hath received them, 
he would, says Stapleton, be most justly called and deemed a 
heretie. But I affirm, that no doctrines have now become matters 
of faith, which were not received by the ancient church in the times 
of the apostles; so that all those churches must have erred which 
formerly did not receive the same. He presses us, however, with 
particular instances, and produces certain points which he says 
were not received at first: as for instance, the doctrine of the pro- 
cession of the Holy Ghost, of the creation of souls immediately by 
God, of the unlawfulness of repeating heretical baptism: but I 
affirm once more, that all these doctrines had whatever force they 
now have at all times, so as that if it be now heretical not to assent 
to them, it must have been always equally heretical; for the 
doctrine of scripture never changes in the gospel, but is always 
equally necessary. Everything that Stapleton adduces, in order to 
shew that those books which were formerly not received by the 
church, ought now to be received solely on account of the external 
testimony of the church, may be reduced to the argument stated 
above. He subjoins that the authority of the church respects the 
scriptures only materially ; which he explains to mean, that it is 
fitting we should obey the judgment of the church, and, on account 
of its judgment, receive the scripture as sacred. But it would not, 
says he, be fitting that the truth of scripture, or of other objects of 
faith, should so depend upon the judgment of the church, as that 
they should only be true on condition of the church’s approving them; 
but now, says he, the church does not make them true in themselves, 
but only causes them to be believed as true. Mark ye. The scrip- 
ture is true in itself, and all the doctrines of scripture are true; but 
they could not appear true to us, we could not believe the scriptures, 
unless the church approved the scripture and the doctrines of scrip- 
ture. Although these things be true in themselves, yet they would 
not have seemed true to us, they would not have been believed, or 
(to use Stapleton’s expression) received by us, unless on account of 
the church’s approbation. This is the whole mystery of iniquity. 
We determine far otherwise, and with far greater truth: for we 
resolutely deny that we are indebted to the church for this—that the 
scriptures are true even in respect to us; but we say that our 


282 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [on. 


belief of their truth is produced by the testimony and suggestion 
of the Holy Spirit. It was Cochleus who taught Stapleton this 
blasphemy, in his second book upon the authority of the church 
and scripture; where he collects many places of scripture, which 
may seem incredible to man, and to which he maintains that human 
frailty could not assent, if they were not confirmed by the authority 
of the church. Such is the account of David’s innumerable army, 
which he shews from the smallness of that country to be a thing 
which no one would think credible. For he says that the land of 
Judxa could never have nourished and supported such a vast 
number of men; and demonstrates this from a comparison of that 
region with other countries, shewing that so many thousand men 
were never enrolled in the whole Roman republic, which was much 
larger than Judsea. How, says he, can the human intellect assent 
to these things, when nothing of the kind is read in any other 
historians, cosmographers, philosophers, orators, nay, even poets ? 
* For what fable of the poets" (these are his words) “ever ascribed 
such a number of warriors to one people, and that not the whole 
of the people!?” He brings in also the number of talents which 
David is said to have left to his son Solomon for the building of 
the temple. For this, he maintains, may deservedly seem incredible, 
inasmuch as David was very poor; which he endeavours to prove 
from the circumstance that he spent so much upon his courtiers, 
sons, wives, and concubines which he had in great numbers, and 
also in the wars, which lasted almost all through his life. Whence, 
he asks, came such wealth to David as neither Creesus, nor Alex- 
ander, nor Augustus, ever possessed? He is profusely prodigal 
of words and eloquence upon this subject, and hath produced many 
passages of this kind, which shame and weariness alike forbid me 
to enumerate. At the close he concludes thus, (and a noble con- 
clusion it is,) that all these things cannot otherwise be believed, but 
because the church believes them, and hath required them to be 
believed. Certainly I know not what is, if this be not, impudence. 
Cannot then these things be believed on any other ground, but 
because the church hath delivered them, and would have them to 
be believed? What then shall we say of the almost infinite 
number of other such things which are contained in scripture; of 
the passage of the Israelites through the sea; of the manna; of 
the quails by which the people of Israel were fed in the desert so 


[| Qu» enim fabula poetarum uni populo nec toti tantum numerum 
ascripsit fortium virorum ?] 


i. | QUESTION THE THIRD. 288 


richly ; of all Christ's miracles? What of the whole scheme of 
our redemption, the incarnation, death, resurrection, ascension, of 
Christ? What must we determine of all these? Can these too 
be believed as true upon no other reason or testimony, but because 
the church hath so determined? This is monstrous blasphemy, 
and worthy of a Cochleus and a Stapleton! We believe these 
things, and have no doubt of their truth, not merely because the 
church hath so determined, but on account of the authority of the 
word of God and of the Holy Spirit. All therefore that the 
papists allege tends substantially to make the whole authority of 
scripture depend upon the authority of the church, which never- 
theless they deny: yet that this is the real meaning of their 
opinion 1s manifest from what hath been already said. Stapleton 
subjoins, that it should not appear to us more unbecoming that the 
church should commend the scripture and bear testimony to it, 
than it was unbecoming that John the Baptist should bear witness 
to Christ, and the gospel should be written by men. Now we 
confess that the church commends the scripture by its testimony, 
and that this is the illustrious office of the church; but it is a very 
different matter to say that we could not otherwise believe the 
scriptures, unless on account of this Judgment and testimony of the 
church. We concede the former; the latter we resolutely deny, 
and that with the greatest detestation. 

You have heard how much these men attribute to the church. 
It follows now that we consider how much ought really to be 
attributed to it. We do not indeed ascribe as much to the church 
as they do (for we could not do so lawfully); but yet we recognise 
distinguished offices which the church hath to perform in respect 
of scripture, and which may be reduced to four heads. First, the 
church is the witness and guardian of the sacred writings, and 
discharges, in this respect, as it were the function of a notary. 
In guardians the greatest fidelity is required: but no one would 
say that records were believed merely on the notary’s authority, 
but on account of their own trustworthiness. So the church ought 
carefully to guard the scriptures, and yet we do not repose credit 
in the scriptures merely on account of the testimony and authority 
of the church. The second office of the church is, to distinguish 
and discern the true, sincere, and genuine scriptures from the 
spurious, false, and supposititious. Wherein it discharges the office 
of a champion; and for the performance of this function it hath 
the Spirit of Christ to enable it to distinguish the true from the 


284 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


false: it knows the voice of the spouse; it is endued with the 
highest prudence, and is able to try the spirits. The goldsmith 
with his scales and touchstone can distinguish gold from copper 
and other metals; wherein he does not make gold, even in respect 
of us, but only indicates what is gold, so that we the more easily 
trust it. Or, if a different illustration be required, another skilful 
person informs me that a coin, which I do not recognise as such, 
is good and lawful money: and I, being so instructed, acquiesce ; 
but it is on account of the matter and the form impressed upon 
the coin that I perceive it to be sterling and royal money. In 
like manner, the church acknowledges the scriptures, and de- 
clares them to be divine: we, admonished and stirred up by the 
church, perceive the matter to be so indeed.— The third office 
of the church is to publish, set forth, preach, and promulgate the 
scriptures; wherein it discharges the function of a herald, who 
ought to pronounce with a loud voice the decrees and edicts of the 
king, to omit nothing, to add nothing of his own. Chrysostom, in 
his first Homily upon the Epistle to Titus, pursues this similitude : 
* As," says he, “the herald makes his proclamation in the theatre 
in the presence of all, so also we!.” Where he shews that the duty 
of the herald is to publish whatever is consigned to him, to add 
nothing of his own, and to keep back no part of his commission. 
Now the people believes and obeys the edict of the magistrates on 
its own account, not because of the voice of the crier.— The fourth 
office of the church is to expound and interpret the scriptures; 
wherein its function is that of an interpreter. Here it should in- 
troduce no fictions of its own, but explain the scriptures by the 
scriptures. Such are the offices, and those surely in the highest 
degree great and dignified, which we gladly allow to belong to 
the church: from which, nevertheless, it will by no means follow, 
that we assent to the scriptures solely on account of the church’s 
authority, which is the point that the papists affirm and maintain. 

From what hath. been said it is sufficiently evident what are 
the offices of the church in respect of scripture, both in our opinion 
and in that of the papists. 


1 e € , £ , , > ^ Ó , 7d e Sce ^ 
[ @WOTTEP Oo Kn pu TAVT@V TApOVvT@v €v TO € Tpo Kr)pvTTet, OvTO Kal n pets. —— 


Opp. T. Iv. p. 383.] 





ni. | QUESTION THE THIRD. 285 


CHAPTER III. 
WHEREIN THE FIRST ARGUMENT OF OUR OPPONENTS IS CONFUTED. 


WE have drawn the true state of this question from the books 
of the papists themselves. It follows now that we should approach 
their arguments, which they themselves deem so exceeding strong 
as to leave us no capacity to resist them. But we, with God’s help, 
shall easily (as I hope) confute them all. Stapleton hath borrowed 
much from Canus, and explicated his arguments at greater length. 
With him therefore we will engage, as well because he is our fellow- 
countryman, as because he seems to have handled this subject most 
acutely and accurately of them all. He bestows his whole ninth 
book upon this question, and in the fourth chapter of that book 
commences his reasoning against us in this manner: To have a 
certain canon of scripture is most necessary to faith and religion, 
But without the authority of the church it is impossible to have 
a certain canon of scripture; since it cannot be clear and certain 
to us what book is legitimate, what supposititious, unless the church 
teach us. Therefore, &c. I answer, as to the major: Firstly, 
the major is true, if he mean books properly canonical, which have 
been always received by the church; for these the church ought 
always to acknowledge for canonical: although it be certain that 
many flourishing churches formerly in several places had doubts 
for a time concerning many of the books, as appears from antiquity. 
Secondly, therefore, it is not absolutely, and in the case of each 
particular person, necessary for faith and salvation to know what 
books are canonical. For many can have faith and obtain sal- 
vation, who do not hold the full number of the canonical books, 
Stapleton proves his assumption,—namely, that the canon of scrip- 
ture can no otherwise be certainly known to us but by the authority 
of the church,—by three arguments. The first is this: There is 
no authority more certain than that of the church. But there is 
need of the most certain authority, that the trustworthiness of 
scripture may be ascertained, and all doubt removed from the 
conscience concerning the canon of scripture. Therefore, &c, I 
answer, that it is false to say, as he does, that no authority is 
more certain than that of the church: it is a mere begging of the 
question. For greater and more certain is the authority of God, 
of the scriptures themselves, and of the Holy Spirit, by whose 


286 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


testimony the truth of scripture is sealed in our minds, and with- 
out which all other testimonies are utterly devoid of strength. 
But God (says he) teaches us through the church, and by no other 
medium: therefore there is no more certain authority than that 
of the church. I answer: His own words prove that God's au- 
thority is more certain. For the authority of him who teaches 
is greater than that of him through whom one is taught. God 
teaches us through the church: therefore the authority of God 
is greater than that of the church. I am surprised that Stapleton 
should have been so stupid as not to see that, if it be God who 
teaches through the church, the authority of God must be greater 
than that of the church. He confesses that we are taught by God 
through the church: therefore, since God is the prime and highest 
teacher, it is evident that his authority and trustworthiness is the 
chief. For the church is only his minister, subserves him in giving 
instruction, and expounds his commands. The weakness of his 
reasoning will easily appear from a parallel instance. A prince 
publishes his law and edict by a herald, and explains and expounds 
by his lawyers the meaning of the law and the force of the edict. 
Does it therefore follow that there is no more certain authority 
than that of the herald and the lawyers? By no means. For it 
is manifest that the authority of the law and of the prince is greater 
than that of the herald or the interpreter. But (says he) nothing 
is more certain than God’s teaching: therefore nothing more 
certain than the authority of the church, since God teaches through 
‘the church. Now where is the consequence of this? We confess 
indeed that nothing is more certain than God’s teaching, and this 
is the very thing which we maintain, and hence conclude that the 
authority of the church is not the highest: but his consequence 
meanwhile is weak, until he prove that God and the church are 
the same thing. It will more correctly follow from this reasoning, 
that nothing is more certain than the word of God and the serip- 
tures, because it is God who addresses us in his word, and teaches 
us through his word; whereas the church discharges merely a 
ministerial function. Therefore we are not bound absolutely to 
receive whatever the church may teach us, but only whatever it 
proves itself to have been commanded by God to teach us, and 
with divine authority. 

The second argument wherewith Stapleton confirms the as- 
sumption of the preceding syllogism is this: All other mediums 
that can be attempted are insufficient without making recourse to 


11. | "QUESTION THE THIRD. 287 


the judgment of the church; and then he enumerates the mediums 
upon which we rely. For as to the style (says he) and phrase- 
ology, and other mediums, by which the scripture is usually dis- 
tinguished,—these the church knows best, and is best able to judge 
aright. Therefore, &c. I answer: If by the church he understand 
the pope and the bishops (as the papists always do), I deny that 
they are best able to distinguish the style and phraseology of scrip- 
ture; I deny that this is the true church of Christ which knows 
the voice of Christ. But if he speak of the true church, this 
fallacy is that called ignoratio elenchi, and the state of the question 
is changed. For before this he had been speaking of the external 
judgment of scripture, which perhaps may properly belong to the 
bishops: but here he understands the internal judgment, which is 
not only proper to the pastors, but common to all Christians: for 
all Christ's sheep know his voice, and are internally persuaded of 
the truth of scripture. Secondly, although we should concede all 
this to him, yet where will be the coherence of his reasoning,— 
The church knows best the voice of the spouse, and the style and 
phraseology of scripture; therefore its authority is the most cer- 
tain? For what though the church know? What is that to me? 
Are these things therefore known and certain to me? For the 
real question is, how I can know it best? Although the church 
know ever so well the voice of its spouse, and the style and 
phraseology of scripture, it hath that knowledge to itself, not to 
me; and by whatever means it hath gained that knowledge, 
why should I be able to gain it also by the same? Thirdly, from 
what he says, the contrary of his conclusion might much more 
correctly be inferred, namely, that the authority of scripture is 
more certain than that of the church. For if the authority of 
the church be therefore most certain, because it knows best the 
style of scripture, and judges by the style of scripture, it is plain 
that the authority of scripture itself is far more certain, since it 
indicates itself to the church by its style. But I (you will say) 
should not know that this was the voice of the spouse, that this 
was the style of scripture, unless the church were to teach me. 
This, indeed, is untrue, since it can be known that this is the 
voice of Christ and true and genuine scripture without the judg- 
ment of the church, as shall hereafter be shewn more at large. 
But, although we were to grant him this, that it could not be 
known otherwise than through the church, that these were the 
scriptures, yet even so the argument would be -inconsequential. 


288 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ oH. 


For many would not have known Christ, if John had not taught 
them, pointed him out, and exclaimed, “ Behold the Lamb of God, 
who taketh away the sin of the world!” Was then the authority 
of John more certain than that of Christ? By no means. For 
John brought many to Christ, who afterwards believed much more 
on account of Christ himself, than on account of the preaching and 
testimony of John. So many through means of the church believe 
these to be the scriptures, who afterwards believe still more firmly, 
being persuaded by the scriptures themselves. Besides, Paul and 
Peter and the other apostles best knew the voice of Christ; must 
therefore their authority be rated higher than that of Christ him- 
self? Far from it. It does not therefore follow that because the 
church knows very well the voice of Christ, the authority of the 
church is greater than that of Christ. But as to his pretence that 
because the church delivers the rule of faith, it must therefore be 
the correctest judge of that rule; we must observe that the terms 
deliver and judge are ambiguous. ‘The church does indeed deliver 
that rule, not as its author, but as a witness, and an admonisher, 
and a minister: it judges also when instructed by the Holy 
Spirit. But may I therefore conclude, that I cannot be certain 
of this rule, but barely by the testimony of the church? It is 
a mere fallacy of the accident. There is no consequence in this 
reasoning: I can be led by the church’s voice to the rule of faith; 
therefore I can have no more certain judgment than that of the 
church. 

In the third place, Stapleton proves the fore-mentioned assump- 
tion thus: Scripture (says he) cannot be proved by scripture: 
therefore it must be proved by the church; and consequently the 
authority of the church is greater than that of scripture. The an- 
tecedent is thus established. Should any one, he says, deny Paul’s 
epistles to be canonical, it cannot be proved either from the old 
Testament, or from the gospel, because there is nowhere any men- 
tion there made of them. Then he goes on to say that neither the 
whole scripture, nor any part of it, can be proved from scripture 
itself, because all proof is drawn from things better known than the 
thing to be proved. Therefore (says he) to one who denies or 
knows not either the whole scripture or any part of it, nothing can 
be proved from scripture itself. But here, according to him, the 
church comes to our help in both cases. For, should any one 
deny a part of scripture, the church persuades him to receive 
these books upon the same ground as he hath received the others: 


II. | QUESTION THE THIRD. 289 


he who is ignorant of the whole scripture, it persuades to accept 
the scripture in the same way as he hath accepted Christ. 

I answer, This is a fine way of persuading a man to receive 
these books upon the same grounds as he hath received the others! 
But the question is, how he was first induced to receive those 
others? Was it by the authority of the church? Why then did 
he not receive all upon the faith of the same judgment? For the 
church will have us receive the whole scripture as well as certain 
parts of it. Stapleton does not meet this scruple. Besides, it is 
manifestly absurd to suppose the possibility of a man’s believing in 
Christ, who denies and rejects the whole scripture: this certainly is 
quite impossible. But now let us come to the examination of the 
argument itself, to which I return a twofold answer. First, I affirm 
that the scripture can be understood, perceived, known and proved 
from scripture. Secondly, I say that if it cannot be perceived and 
proved in this way, still less can it be proved by the church. 

The first will be evident from the following considerations. 
Scripture hath for its author God himself; from whom it first pro- 
ceeded and came forth. Therefore, the authority of scripture may 
be proved from the author himself, since the authority of God him- 
self shines forth in it. 2 Tim. ui. 16, the whole scripture is called 
Qcorvevaros. In 2 Pet. i. 12, we are told, * Prophecy in old 
time came not by the will of men, but holy men of God spake as 
they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” /z0 mvevmartos aryiou 
epopevor. And, verse 19, the word of prophecy is called (3e- 
Baotepos : " Eyouev, says the apostle, e3ai9repov Tov mpopyti- 
Kov Noryov. That word BeBarorepos is most pertinent to the mat- 
ter in hand; for it signifies that the scripture is endued with the 
firmest and highest authority. In the same place it is compared to 
a lamp shining in a dark place, AU xv QaivorTi ev av yp TOT. 
It hath therefore light in itself, and such light as we may see in 
the darkness. But if the opinion of our opponents were correct, 
this light should be in the church, not in the scriptures. David 
indicates the same thing in the 14th octonary of Psalm cxix., at the 
beginning, where he says, * Thy word is a lamp to my feet, and a 
light to my path :" therefore the scripture hath the clearest light 
in itself. On this account it is frequently styled the testimony. 
From these and similar passages, we reason thus: There is the 
greatest perspicuity and light in the seriptures: therefore the scrip- 
ture may be understood by the scripture, if one only have eyes to 
perceive this light. As the brightest light appears in the sun, so 


[ WHITAKER. | 19 


290 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ CH. 


the greatest splendour of divinity shines forth in the word of God. 
The blind cannot perceive even the light of the sun; nor can they 
distinguish the splendour of the scriptures, whose minds are not . 
divinely illuminated. But those who have eyes of faith can behold 
this light. Besides, if we recognise men when they speak, why 
should we not also hear and recognise God speaking in his word? 
For what need is there that another should teach that this is the 
voice of somebody, when I recognise it myself; or should inform 
me that my friend speaks, when I myself hear and understand him 
speaking ? 

But they object that we cannot recognise the voice of God, 
because we do not hear God speaking. This I deny. For those 
who have the Holy Spirit, are taught of God: these can recog- 
nise the voice of God as much as any one can recognise a friend, 
with whom he hath long and familiarly lived, by his voice. Nay, 
they can even hear God. For so Augustine (Ep. m.) “God ad. 
dresses us every day. He speaks to the heart of every one of 
us}.” If we do not understand, the reason is because we have not 
the Spirit, by which our hearts should be enlightened. With 
respect to us, therefore, the authority of the scripture depends 
upon, and is made clear by, the internal witness of the Holy Spirit; 
without which, though you were to hear a thousand times that this 
is the word of God, yet you could never believe in such a manner 
as to acquiesce with an entire assent. Besides, the papists should 
tell us whether or no this is really the word of God which we pos- 
sess. Now that it is in itself the word of God, they do not deny, 
but they say that we cannot be certain of it without the help of 
the church: they confess that the voice of God sounds in our ears; 
but they say that we cannot believe it, except upon account of the 
church's approbation. But now, if it be the word of God which we 
hear, it must needs have a divine authority of itself, and should be 
believed by itself and for itself. Otherwise we should ascribe more 
to the church than to God, if we did not believe him except for the 
sake of the church. God speaks in the prophets, and through the 
prophets: whence we find often used by them such phrases as, the - 
word of Jehovah, and, Thus saith Jehovah. Now then these men 
tell me that I must by no means believe that God really speaks, or 
that this is the word of Jehovah, unless the church confirm the 
same: in which proceeding every one may perceive that more 
credit and authority is ascribed to the church, that is, to men, than 


[1 Ep. 137. Opp. T. 11. 528. Bassan. 1797.] 


ul. | | QUESTION THE THIRD. 291 


to God; which is directly opposite to what should be done: for 
God ought to be believed before all, since he is the prime and 
highest verity; while the church is nothing of the kind. If, there- 
fore, God address me, and say that this is his word, I should 
acquiesce in his authority. Hitherto we have shewn that there is 
a divine authority in scripture (which we shall do hereafter even 
still more clearly); and that, consequently, we should believe it by 
itself and of itself. It now remains that we shew that the scrip- 
tures themselves mutually support and confirm each other by their 
testimony ; which is a point easy to be proved. 

The old Testament is confirmed by itself, and by the new; the 
new also by itself, and by the old: so that, as it is certain that 
there is a God, although the church had never said it, so it is cer- 
tain that the scripture is the word of God, although the church had 
been silent upon the subject. But they, perhaps, would not even 
believe God's existence, except upon the church’s word. [It is evi- 
dent that the old Testament is proved by the new. In Luke xxiv. 
44, Christ divides the whole old Testament into Moses, the pro- 
phets, and the Psalms: therefore he hath declared all these books 
to be authentic and canonical, and hath besides confirmed his whole 
doctrine from those books. If, then, we believe Christ, we must 
believe the whole old Testament to be endued with authentical au- 
thority. In Luke xvi. 29, 31, Abraham, when the rich man requests 
that Lazarus may be sent to his brethren, replies, * They have 
Moses and the prophets; let them hear them :" as much as to say, 
those who will not hear them, will hear no man, not even the church. 
In John x. 35, “the scripture cannot be broken," AvO7va:, there- 
fore it possesses an eternal and immutable force. In John v. 39, 
Christ says to the Jews, ** Search the scriptures :" where he under- 
stands all the books of the old Testament; for the new had not yet 
been published. Thus we have shewn in general that the old Tes- 
tament is confirmed by the new; let us now shew the same in 
detail. Christ himself confirms the books of Moses specially, Matth. 
v., where he interprets the whole law; Matth. xix., where he ex- 
plains the law of marriage; Matth. xxii., where he proves the re- 
surrection of the flesh from Moses; and John iu. 14,-where he 
confirms his own death, and its efficacy and benefits, from the figure 
of the brasen serpent. The historical books of the old Testament 
are likewise confirmed by the new. Matth. xii. 42, Christ mentions 
the story of the Queen of Sheba: Luke iv. 26, the story of the 
widow of Sarepta is repeated, which occurs 2 Kings v.: Acts ii. 25, 

19—2 


292 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ou. 


30, 34, a testimony is adduced from the Psalms: Acts xii. 17 and 
following verses, Paul details a long narrative, drawn from several 
books of the old Testament: Heb. xi., many examples are produced 
from the books of Joshua and Judges. Part of the genealogy which 
Matthew exhibits is derived from the book of Ruth. From the 
Psalms an almost infinite multitude of testimonies are alleged; very 
many from Isaiah; many from Ezekiel, and, in a word, from all the 
prophets, except perhaps one or two of the minor prophets. But 
Stephen, Acts vii. 42, cites the book of the twelve minor prophets, 
and thus proves the authority of them all; for all the minor pro- 
phets used formerly to make but one book. Now the testimony 
there cited is taken from the prophet Amos, Thus it is manifest 
that the confirmation of the old may be drawn from the new Testa- 
ment. Upon this subject, see further in Augustine, in his book, 
contra Adversar. Legis et Prophetarum, and contra Faustum 
Manicheum. 

Now that, in like manner, the books of the new Testament 
may be confirmed from the old, is sufficiently clear. For the 
truth of the new Testament is shadowed forth in the figures of 
the old; and whatever things were predicted in the old, those we 
read to have been fulfilled in the new. Whatever was said ob- 
securely in the former, is said plainly in the latter. Therefore if 
one be true, the other must needs be true also. Moses wrote of 
the Messiah, and so did the prophets. Moses, Deut. xviii. 18, fore- 
told that there should be a prophet like unto himself; and death 
and destruction is denounced upon any who would not hear him. 
Peter, Acts ii. 22, and Stephen, Acts vii. 37, teach us that this 
prediction of a prophet hath been fulfilled. Moses therefore hath 
sanctioned Christ by his testimony. Peter confirms Paul’s epistles 
by his authority, 2 Pet. iii. 16, and distinctly calls them seriptures. 
«The unlearned,” says he, ** wrest them, as they do also the other 
scriptures.” Paul confirms his own epistles by his name, and by 
his judgment. Therefore the old and new Testaments do, by their 
mutual testimony, establish and consign each other. In other cases, 
indeed, such a mutual confirmation is of no avail; but in this it. 
should be-of the greatest, because no one is so fit a witness of God 
and his word, as God himself in his word. If then we repose any 
credit in the old Testament, we must repose as much in the new; 
if we believe the new, we must believe the old also. But the 
papists, on the contrary, would have neither Testament believed on 
its own account, but both on account of the church's authority : the 


III. | | QUESTION THE THIRD. 293 


falsehood of which is abundantly evident from what hath been 
already said. 

But human incredulity will still urge, that this may indeed be 
conceded with respect to some books, but that it cannot be affirmed 
of every one of the books of the old and new Testament; because 
we nowhere read that the books of Esther, Nehemiah, and Ezra, were 
confirmed by the authority of the new Testament: and there are 
besides many books of the new Testament which cannot be con- 
firmed by the old. Besides, if there were even some one book of 
the new Testament, in whieh all the books of the old Testament 
were severally enumerated, there would yet be need (wil the 
papists say) of the authority of the ancient church, because there 
may be some who do not acknowledge the authority of any book ; 
and how (they will say) are we to persuade such persons that this 
scripture is divine ? 

I answer, in the first place, such men as these, who despise all 
the sacred books, the church itself will be unable to convince: for 
with those who hold the authority of scripture in no esteem, the 
authority of the church will have but little weight. Secondly, if 
any pious persons have yet doubts concerning the scriptures, much 
more certain evidences may be gathered from the books themselves, 
to prove them canonical, than from any authority of the church. 
I speak not now of the internal testimony of the Spirit, but of cer- 
tain external testimonies, which may be drawn from the books 
themselves to prove them divinely inspired writings. Such are 
mentioned by Calvin, Institut. Lib. 1. c. 8!, and are of the following 
kind. First, the majesty of the doctrine itself, which every where 
shines forth in the sacred and canonical books. Nowhere, assuredly, 
does such majesty appear in the books of philosophers, orators, or 
even of all the divines that ever wrote upon theology. There are 
none of the sacred books which one would be more likely to ques- 
tion than the Epistle of Jude, the second Epistle of Peter, and the 
second and third of John, since formerly even some churches enter- 
tained doubts of them: nevertheless, in these there is contained 
such a kind of teaching as can be found in no other writer. 
Secondly, the simplicity, purity, and divinity of the style. Never 
was anything written more chastely, purely, or divinely. Such pu- 
rity is not to be found in Plato, or in Aristotle, or in Demosthenes, 
or in Cicero, or in any other writer. Thirdly, the antiquity of the 
books themselves secures them a great authority. For the books 
of Moses are more ancient than the writings of any other men, and 


[! T. 1. pp. 62—69. ed. Tholuck. Berolin. 1834.] 


294 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


contain the oldest of all histories, deduced from the very creation of 
the world; which other writers were either wholly ignorant of, or 
heard of from this source, or contaminated by the admixture of 
many fables. Fourthly, the oracles contained in these books prove 
their authority to be sacred in the highest sense, by shewing it 
necessarily divine. For some things are here predicted, which 
happened many ages afterwards, and names are given to persons 
some ages before they were born; as to Josiah, 1 Kings xiii. 2, 
and to Cyrus, Isaiah xliv. 28, and xlv. 1. How could this have 
been without some divine inspiration?  /%fthly, miracles, so many 
and so true, prove God to be the author of these books. Siathly, 
the enemies themselves prove these books to be sacred; for, while 
they have endeavoured wholly to destroy them, their fury hath 
ever been in vain: nay, many of them, by the penalties and 
torments which befel them, were made to understand that it was 
the word of God which they opposed. Seventhly, the testimonies 
of martyrs make it evident that the majesty of these books is of no 
mean character, since they have sealed the doctrine, here delivered 
down and set forth, by their confession and their blood. .Eighthly, 
the authors themselves guarantee, in a great measure, the credit of 
these books. What sort of men were they before they were 
raised up to discharge this office by the Holy Ghost? Altogether 
unfitted for such a function then, though afterwards endowed with 
the noblest gifts of the Holy Spirit. Who was Moses, before he 
was called by God? First, a courtier in Egypt, then a shepherd, 
finally, endued with the richest outpouring of the Spirit, he became 
a prophet, and the leader of the people of Israel. Who was Jere- 
miah? A man, incapable, as himself testifies, of any eloquence. 
Who was David? A youth and a shepherd. Who Peter? A 
fisherman, an ignorant and illiterate person. Who John? A man 
of the same low rank. Who was Matthew? A publican, altogether 
a stranger to holy things. Who was Paul? An enemy and per- 
secutor of that doctrine which he afterwards professed. Who was 
Luke? A physician. How could such men have written so divinely 
without the divine inspiration of the Holy Ghost? They were, 
almost all, illiterate men, learned in no accomplishments, taught in — 
no schools, imbued with no instruction; but afterwards summoned by 
a divine call, marked out for this office, admitted to the counsels 
of God: and so they committed all to writing with the exactest 
fidelity ; which writings are now in our hands. 

These topics may prove that these books are divine, yet will 
never be sufficient to bring conviction to our souls so as to make us 


m1. | QUESTION THE THIRD. 295 


assent, unless the testimony of the Holy Spirit be added. When 
this is added, it fills our minds with a wonderful plenitude of as- 
surance, confirms them, and causes us most gladly to embrace the 
scriptures, giving force to the preceding arguments. Those pre- 
vious arguments may indeed urge and constrain us; but this (I 
mean the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit) is the only argu- 
ment which can persuade us. 

Now if the preceding arguments cannot persuade us, how 
much less the authority of the church, although it were to repeat 
its affirmation a thousand times! The authority of the church, 
and its unbroken judgment, may perhaps suffice to keep men in 
some external obedience, may induce them to render an external 
consent, and to persevere in an external unity: but the church can 
of itself by no means persuade us to assent to these oracles as 
divine. In order, therefore, that we should be internally in our 
consciences persuaded of the authority of scripture, it is needful 
that the testimony of the Holy Ghost should be added. And he, 
as he seals all the doctrines of faith and the whole teaching of sal- 
vation in our hearts, and confirms them in our consciences, so also 
does he give us a certain persuasion that these books, from which 
are drawn all the doctrines of faith and salvation, are sacred and 
canonical. But, you will say, this testimony is not taken from the 
books themselves: it is, therefore, external, and not inherent in the 
word. I answer: Although the testimony of the Holy Ghost be 
not, indeed, the same as the books themselves; yet it is not 
external, nor separate, or alien from the books, because it is per- 
ceived in the doctrine delivered in those books; for we do not 
speak of any enthusiastic influence of the Spirit. But, in like 
manner as no man can certainly assent to the doctrine of faith 
except by the Spirit, so can none assent to the scriptures but by 
the same Spirit. 

But here two objections must be removed, which are proposed 
by Stapleton, of which the former is against this latter reply of 
ours, and the latter against the former. The first objection is this : 
If it be by the testimony of the Spirit that we know the scriptures, 
how comes it that churches, which have this Spirit, agree not 
amongst themselves? For (so he argues) the Lutherans disagree 
with you Calvinists, because you receive some books which they 
reject: therefore, either you or they are without the Spirit. 
This is an objection urged also by Campian and by others. I 
answer: In the first place, it does not follow either that they who 


296 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


reject those books, or we who receive them, are without the Holy 
Spirit. For no saving truth can be known without the Holy 
Spirit; as for example, that Christ died for us, or any other. 
This the papists will themselves allow. Yet it does not follow that 
all who have learned this truth from the Holy Spirit must agree 
in all other points of faith. Nor does it immediately follow, that 
all who are in error are without the Holy Spirit, because all errors 
are not capital. Now the reason why all who have the Holy Spirit 
do not think exactly alike of all things, is because there is not precisely 
the same equal measure of the Holy Spirit in all; otherwise there 
would be the fullest agreement in all points. Secondly, both we 
who receive some books not received by the Lutherans, have the 
precedent of some ancient churches, and the Lutherans also, who 
reject them. For there were some churches who received these 
books (that is, the epistle of Jude, the second epistle of Peter, and 
the second and third of John), and also some who rejected them, 
and yet all meanwhile were churches of God. Thirdly, it does not 
presently follow that all have the Holy Spirit who say they have 
it Although many of the Lutherans (as they call them) reject 
these books, yet it is not to be concluded that such is the common 
opinion of that whole church. The papists, indeed, understand and 
denote by the name of the church only the bishops and doctors ; 
but the sentiments are not to be judged of by merely a few of its 
members. 

The second objection against our former reply is to this effect : 
The scripture is not the voice of God, but the word of God ; that is, 
it does not proceed immediately from God, but is delivered me- 
diately to us through others. I answer: We confess that God 
hath not spoken by himself, but by others. Yet this does not 
diminish the authority of scripture. For God inspired the prophets 
with what they said, and made use of their mouths, tongues, and 
hands: the scripture, therefore, is even immediately the voice of 
God. The prophets and apostles were only the organs of God. 
It was God who spake to the fathers in the prophets and through 
the prophets, as is plain from Heb. i. 1. And Peter says, 2 Epist. 
i. 21, that “holy men of God spake as they were moved, $epouévovs, 
by the Holy Ghost." "Therefore the scripture is the voice of the 
Spirit, and consequently the voice of God. But what though it 
were not the voice of God immediately, but only the word of 
God? Therefore (says Stapleton) it requires to be made known 
by the church like the rest, that is, like other doctrines necessary 


Ill. | QUESTION THE THIRD. 297 


to salvation. But what? Is it only by the testimony of the 
church, that we know all other points of religion and doctrines of 
the faith? Is it not the office of the Holy Spirit to teach us all 
things necessary to salvation? Mark well how Stapleton affirms 
that we learn all only from the church, and sets the Spirit and 
the church asunder. But if the Spirit teach in the church, and it 
is by the Spirit that we know the other doctrines, then why may 
we not learn from the Spirit this also, that the scripture is the 
word of God? Let him speak and tell us, if he can. But this 
(says he) is a “matter of faith, like the rest." I confess it. But 
here he strangles himself in his own noose. For if without faith 
it cannot be understood that the scripture is the word of God, then 
is there need of some more certain testimony than the external 
approbation of the church. For the Holy Ghost is the author of 
faith, and not the church, except as an instrument, an external 
and ministerial medium. He subjoins: “ But this, like the rest, 
exceeds mere human comprehension.” I answer: Therefore men 
cannot give us this persuasion, but there is need of some higher, 
greater, more certain testimony than that of man. Now the church 
is an assembly of men, and is composed of men.  * But this (says 
he further) should not, any more than the rest, be received by 
immediate revelations.” I answer: This is no extraordinary or 
immediate revelation separate from the teaching of the books them- 
selves; because it springs, derives itself, and is perceived from the 
word itself through the same Spirit from which that word emanated. 
But I would gladly know from them, whence it is that the church 
comes to know that the scripture is the word of God. If they say, 
by a private revelation; then they concede that extraordinary and 
private revelations are still employed, and so they establish and 
confirm enthusiasm; for this authority they attribute even to the 
present church. If they say, by some ordinary means; then they 
must acknowledge that the church hath this knowledge by the 
word itself. Stapleton proceeds: Now it cannot be discovered by 
reason that one book is apocryphal, another canonical; this au- 
thentic, and that spurious, any more than the rest. Therefore it 
must be proved by the church. I answer: The inference does 
not hold. For it cannot be proved by human reasons that Christ 
was born of a virgin, rose from the dead, ascended up to heaven 
with his body. Must then the whole credit of these and other 
articles depend upon the sole authority and testimony of the church 
alone? Do we believe these things to be true upon no other 
grounds but because it pleases the church that we should thus 


298 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


believe? Assuredly not. But what, though it were conceded that 
we came to know through the church, that this is the word of God, 
and that this teaching is true and canonical, which we do indeed 
gladly concede in a certain sense; yet must this be understood 
so as to indicate an external, ministerial means, which God hath 
been pleased to use in instructing us, and nothing more. It is 
through the ministry of the church, and not on account of the 
church's authority. As, therefore, he who receives a message of 
great favours promised or bestowed upon him by his sovereign, does 
not believe on account of the messenger, or on the messenger's 
authority, but on account of the prince's own munificenee, or because 
he sees the patent or letter signed with the prince's own hand, or 
because he recognises some other certain token; nor believes on 
account of the servant, although through his ministry; so we re- 
ceive indeed the scriptures sent to us from God through the church, 
and yet do not believe it to be sent from God solely on the church's 
authority, but on account of the voice of God, which we recognise 
speaking clearly and expressly in the scriptures. 

I answer, secondly, If scripture cannot be proved by scripture, 
as Stapleton says, then certainly much less can it be proved by the 
church. For if Stapleton's be a good reason, that scripture cannot 
be proved by scripture, because scripture may be unknown or de- 
nied, that reason will have still greater force against the church. 
For the church is no less liable to be unknown or denied than the 
scripture. Stapleton calls this a “ weighty question ;” and indeed 
he must needs find it so. In truth, it is so weighty that he cannot 
support himself under it. 

But, says he, the case of the een and of the scripture is 
not the same. Why? “Because there is no Christian who is 
ignorant of the church.” In like manner, there is no Christian 
who is utterly ignorant of the scripture. The case of both, there- 
fore, is the same. Do you yourself deem him a Christian who 
denies the whole scripture ? Certainly, he replies; for he affirms that 
some Christians deny the scriptures, such as the Schwenkfeldians, 
Anabaptists, and in England the Familists! and Superilluminati. 
I answer, our question is about real Christians. These are not 
Christians truly but equivocally, as the papists are equivocal 
catholics. It may indeed happen that there may be some Chris- 
tians who are ignorant of the canon of scripture, or have even not 
seen some books of it, but yet assent to the doctrine contained in the 


[| Disciples of Henry Nicholas of Amsterdam. See Hooker, Preface to 
E. P., Chap. iii. 9, and Mr. Keble’s note, p. 184. ] 


ri. | QUESTION THE THIRD. 299 


canon of scripture; for otherwise they certainly cannot be called 
Christians. As to his assertion that there are no Christians who 
are ignorant of the church, if he mean it of the Roman church, it is 
certain that many Christians have been, and still are ignorant of it ; 
many have not even so much as heard of it. Will he exclude all 
these from the hope of salvation? But if he understand any other 
church, it is nothing to the purpose. However, he proves that no 
Christians are ignorant of the church, because in the Creed we be- 
lieve in the church. I confess that in the Creed we do believe in 
the church, but not in this or that church, but the catholic church ; 
which is no particular assembly of men, much less the Roman syna- 
gogue, tied to any one place, but the body of the elect which hath 
existed from the beginning of the world, and shall exist unto 
the end. And why do we thus believe? Assuredly by no other 
argument than the authority of scripture, because the scriptures 
teach us that there is such a body in the world, as Augustine repeats 
a thousand times against the Donatists, not because any church 
attests or professes this proposition. But the church, says he, is 
“the means of believing all the rest;" therefore it is the means 
also of believing the existence of the scriptures. I answer, it is in- 
deed the means, not the principal or prime source; and a mean 
merely external and ministerial. But the principal mean is the 
word itself, and the prime cause is the Spirit; whereas the church is 
only an inferior organ. 

“But in the Creed,” says Stapleton, “we believe in the 
church, but not in the scriptures.” To this I return two an- 
swers. First, since Stapleton allows that we believe in the church, 
I demand how, and on what account? If he say, on account 
of the church, then we believe a thing on account of the thing 
itself, But this is no proof even in his own opinion: for every 
proof (as he says himself elsewhere) proceeds from premises better 
known than the conclusion. Therefore, we believe the church 
through some other mean, that is, through the scripture and the 
chureh. Secondly, Stapleton thus rejects the scripture from the 
Creed, since he says that in the Creed we believe in the church, 
but not in the scriptures. But the scripture is not rejected from 
the Creed; for the Creed is a compendium and epitome of the 
whole scripture, and all the articles of the Creed itself are confirmed 
out of scripture. Besides, in the Creed itself we indicate our belief 
in scripture: for when L'profess that “I believe in God,” I profess 
also that I believe that God speaks truth in his word, and conse- 
quently, that I receive and venerate all divine scripture. For the. 


300 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


word ‘I believe," which occurs at the commencement of the 
Creed, is by the fathers expounded in a threefold sense,—that 
is, I believe God; I believe that there is a God; and I believe 
in God. (Credo Deo, Credo Deum, Credo in Deum). 

Stapleton goes on to observe, that the whole formal cause of 
faith is assent to God revealing something through the church. I 
answer, God does, indeed, reveal truth through the church, but so 
as through an external ministerial medium. But properly he re- 
veals truth to us through the Spirit and the scripture: for though 
“Paul plant and Apollos water,” yet these are of no avail unless 
* God give the increase.” 1 Cor. ii. 6. The church can reveal 
nothing to us in a saving way without the Spirit. But nothing can 
be hence gathered to make it appear that the authority of the 
church and of scripture is not equally doubtful and obscure, nay, 
that the authority of the church is not much more so; since it is 
certain that whatever authority the church hath depends entirely 
upon the scripture. 

So much then in reply to Stapleton’s first argument: let us 
come now to the rest, which are all, as it were, inferior streams 
derived from this first argument, and referred to its confirmation. 
However, we will examine them each distinctly and severally, that 
a plain answer may be returned on our part to every argument 


which he employs. 





CHAPTER IV. 


WHEREIN STAPLETON 'S SECOND ARGUMENT IS PROPOSED 
AND CONFUTED. 


In his ninth Book, chap. 5, he sets forth an egregious piece of 
reasoning to this effect.: Some writings of the prophets and apostles 
have not canonical authority, and some which are not writings of 
prophets or apostles are received into the canon. Therefore the 
whole canon of scripture rests on, and is defined by, the judgment 
of the church, It ought to determine the canon of scripture; and 
consequently the scripture hath its authority from the testimony of 
the church. 

I have three answers to this. First, it is possible that pro- 
phets and apostles may have written some things in an ordinary 
way to private persons, as, for instance, David sent private letters to 


Iv. | | QUESTION THE THIRD. 301 


Joab. These things ought not to be received into the canon. But 
whatever they wrote as prophets, and inspired by God, for the 
public instruction of the church, have been received into the canon. 

Secondly, I demand of him, whether those writings of which he 
speaks were in themselves sacred and divine, or not? If they 
were; then the church ought to admit and approve them by its 
testimony, as they allow themselves, and the church hath erred in 
not receiving them: for it is the office of the church to recognise 
the sacred scriptures and commend them to others. If they were 
not; then it is certain that they were written by prophets and apo- 
stles with some other design than that they should be admitted into 
the canon of scripture: so that the church neither could nor ought 
to have admitted them into that canon. 

Thirdly, no such publie writing of either the prophets or the 
apostles can be produced, which hath not been received in the 
canon of the scriptures. Yet Stapleton endeavours to prove 
that there were many such writings both of prophets and apo- 
stles, which the church never chose to sanction. And, in the 
first place, he enumerates certain writings of the prophets, and 
then of the apostles which were never admitted into the canon. 
By Samuel, says he, and Nathan and Gad, the Acts of David 
were written, as appears from 1 Chron. last chapter, verse 29. 
But those books are not now canonical. Therefore it is in the 
discretion of the church, either to receive books of scripture as 
canonical, or to refuse and reject them as apocryphal. I answer, 
that in that place the sacred history of the first and second of 
Samuel is meant, which was ‘drawn up by those three prophets, 
Samuel, Nathan, and Gad, and which Stapleton rashly denies to be 
canonical. For it is certain that both these books were not written 
by Samuel, because Samuel was dead before the end of the first 
book. Now the church always acknowledged these books to be 
canonical. But Stapleton supposes that some other history, the 
work of those distinguished prophets, is referred to; which cannot be 
established by any proof. Secondly, he says that the Acts of Solo- 
mon were consigned to writing by Nathan, Ahijah and Iddo, as 
appears from 2 Chron. ix. 29. I reply, that the history there 
meant is that which is contained in the first book of Kings: or, if 
some other history be indicated, how will he prove that, when it 
was extant, it had not canonical authority? Thirdly, he proves from 
2 Chron. xiii. 22, that the history of Abijah was written by Iddo 
the prophet, which yet is not now extant in the canon. I answer, 
that this is the same history of king Abijah which is contained in 


302 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


1 Kings xv. Fourthly, he says that the history of Jehoshaphat was 
written by the prophet Jehu; which he proves from 2 Chron. xx. 
34. I answer, that the same history is meant which is extant 
1 Kings xvi. For it is certain that the histories of Judges, Ruth, 
Samuel and Kings, were written by many prophets: whence in 
Matth. 1.!, at the last verse, a passage is cited from the book 
of Judges (for it is found nowhere else); and yet Matthew uses the 
expression, *that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the pro- 
phets,” ro pyOev cia THY cpodurav. Whence we may undertand 
that that book was written and composed by many prophets. 
Fifthly, he says that many writings of Solomon’s are now not 
extant in the canon of scripture. I answer, that this is no great 
wonder, since they have now wholly perished and are not extant 
anywhere: for I believe that no man doubts that some canonical 
pieces have perished. But if they were now extant, Stapleton 
would have to prove that it would depend upon the authority of 
the church whether they should or should not be in the canon. 
Next he brings a testimony from Augustine, de Civit. Dei, Lib. 
xvir cap. ult. where these words occur: * There are writings of 
theirs" (meaning Zechariah, Malachi, and Haggai) “as there are 
of others, who prophesied in great numbers: very few wrote 
pieces which had canonical authority.” I answer, these things 
which Augustine says have no reference to our question. For he 
does not say that many things were written by the prophets which 
had no canonical authority; but that, out of a great many prophets, 
there were very few who wrote anything: because many prophets 
left no written compositions whatever.. What he says, therefore, is, 
there were many prophets who taught the church only orally ; but 
few who wrote anything. This is plainly Augustine’s sense and 
meaning: whence, by the way, we may take notice of Stapleton’s 
fidelity in quoting the fathers. These, then, are Stapleton’s ob- 
jections concerning the writings of the prophets. Let us come now 
to those writings of the apostles which he affirms not to have been 
received into the canon. 

The first specifies the epistle to the Laodiceans, which he proves 
from Coloss. iv. 16, to have been written by Paul; yet, says he, 


[(! Whitaker supposes the reference to be to Judges xiii. 5. But a Naza- 
rite is expressed in Greek by Nagapaios, Nda{ep, Na¢ip, Na(tpatos never, I 
believe, by Na£epatos.] 

[2 Sunt scripta eorum, sieut aliorum qui in magna multitudine prophe- 
tarunt: perpauci ea scripserunt quse auctoritatem canonis haberent. T. 1x. 
p. 640.] 


IV. | | QUESTION THE THIRD. 303 


that epistle is not now in the canon. I answer: No epistle of the 
kind is mentioned in that place. The apostle says, ex Aaod:xetas, 
not mpos Aaodixetav, so that the epistle here referred to was not 
written to the Laodiceans, but from Laodicea. The mistake arose 
from the vulgar Latin edition, which reads, Epistolam Laodi- 
censium. Formerly, indeed, there was an epistle which passed 
under this name, as Epiphanius (contra Marcion.) and others 
remark. Faber Stapulensis counts this amongst Paul's epistles, 
but is censured on that account by Erasmus‘. Those hold a more 
reasonable and specious opinion, who think that there was such an 
epistle, but that it is now lost. However, even that cannot be 
proved from this passage. It appears to me, that what is here 
indicated is rather that the Laodiceans had written an epistle to 
Paul, in which as there were some things which concerned the 
Colossians, and which it was important for them to know, Paul 
wished it to be read by the Colossians along with this epistle of 
his own. This I judge not incredible, and indeed much the more 
probable opinion. To this effect CEcumenius writes distinctly : 
* He does not say, that written to Laodicea, but that from Lao- 
dicea; not that from Paul to the Laodiceans, but that from the 
Laodiceans to Paul. For no doubt there was something in it which 
concerned the Colossians5." These remarks CEcumenius took from 
Chrysostom. Catharinus too, a papist, acknowledges in his com- 
mentary upon this place, (p. 366,) that it is not an epistle written 
by him to the Laodiceans, but one written from that place. Jerome, 
in his catalogue of ecclesiastical writers, under the head of PauLS, 
makes mention of this epistle, but observes that it is universally 
condemned. The second Council of Nice? determines it to be 


[3 Whitaker is doubtless mistaken in supposing that the miserable modern 
forgery, under this title, is the Epistle to the Laodiceans used by Marcion ; 
Marcion gave this title to what we call the Epistle to the Ephesians. See 
Tertullian, c. Mare. V. xr. 17. Epiphanius’ loose and inconsistent statements 
misled Whitaker.—Heres. xlii. T. 1. pp. 310, 319, 374.] 

[* Etiam Faber, homo doctus sed aliquoties nimium candidus, diligenter 
reliquis admiscuit Epistolis.—Erasm. Annot. in Col. iv. 16.] 

[5 od yàp etme tiv mpós Aaoüweis, GAAA THY ék Aaodixelas ypadetsav: ob rjv 
dzó IlavAov mpds Aaodtkéas, adda THY amd Aaobdikéwy pds llaÜov. Hv yap mi 
Tavtas €v abri wpedovyv Kodoooaeis. p. 146. T. rr. Paris. 1631.] 

[ Legunt quidam et ad Laodicenses, sed ab omnibus exploditur. T. rr. 
p. 826.] 

[7 kai yàp rod Oeiov AzoocróAov mpós Aaodixeis déperat mAaGTI) émioroNij.— 


Art. 6. p. 5. Concil. Labb. T. vit. p. 475.] 


304 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. l'cn. 


spurious, and rejects it as supposititious. Theophylact! thinks that 
the first epistle to Timothy is meant, because it was written from 
Laodicea; Tertullian, in his fifth book against Marcion?, the epistle 
to the Ephesians. 

As to what Stapleton subjoins, that there were some books 
written by Peter, and a certain book also of the travels of Paul and 
Thecla3, which are not in the canon; I answer, that these books 
were always deemed spurious impostures by the church. Jerome 
(in Cat. under Prrer‘) rejects them as apocryphal, and not 
written by Peter. Let me therefore say of these, as we read that 
Augustine formerly said of some still more ancient (Civit. Dei, 
Lib. xvur. c. 38): * These writings the chastity of the canon hath 
not admitted, not because the authority of those men who pleased 
God is rejected, but because these are not believed to be their 
works5." It rests not therefore with the church’s discretion to 
make the writings of prophets and apostles canonical or not canon- 
ical, to reject what is, or to admit what is not, canonical. So far 
concerning Stapleton’s second argument. 





CHAPTER V. 


WHEREIN THE THIRD ARGUMENT OF OUR OPPONENTS IS 
EXAMINED AND SET ASIDE. 


STAPLETON's third argument is contained in the 6th chapter 
of his ninth book, and is to this effect. It is owing to the judgment 
and authority of the church, that apocryphal writings of the first 


[1 ris dé zv fj ek Aaodixelas ; 7j mpós Tuuó0eov mporr. avr yap ék Aaod.keias 
eypapn.—Theophyl. in Col. iv. 16, p. 676, Lond. 1636. ] 

[? Preetereo hic et de alia Epistola, quam nos ad Ephesios prescriptam 
habemus, heeretici vero ad Laodicenos.—V. c. 11.] 

[? Grabe Spicil. 1. p. 95, et seqq.] 

[4 Libri autem ejus, e quibus unus Actorum ejus inscribitur, alius Evan- 
gelii, tertius predicationis, quartus Apocalypsis, quintus Judicii, inter apo- 
cryphas scripturas reputantur. T. rr. p. 814.] 

[5 Sed ea castitas Canonis non recepit, non quod eorum hominum qui 
Deo placuerunt, reprobetur auctoritas, sed quod ista non credantur eorum 
esse. T. 1x. p. 685.] 


v.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 305 


kind, such as were formerly not certainly canonical but doubtful, 
were after a while admitted into the canon. Therefore, &c. He 
calls those books Apocryphal of the first class, concerning which 
doubts were at first entertained in the church, although they were 
afterwards ultimately received. Such are those whom this same 
author and other papists call Deutero-canonical. For those which 
form the second rank of canonical, are the first rank of apocryphal 
writings: of which kind, in the old Testament, are Tobit, Judith, 
Ecclesiasticus, and those other books concerning which we have 
disputed at large in the first Question; in the new, the Epistle to 
the Hebrews, the Apocalypse, the second and third Epistles of 
John, the second of Peter, the story of the woman taken in adul- 
tery, the Epistle of Jude, and the Epistle of James. Together 
with these Stapleton, in the fifth chapter of this book, enumerates 
the book of the Shepherd, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Acts of 
Paul, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and the travels of 
Paul, styling these also Apocryphal of the first class, although books 
which neither now nor heretofore were ever received into the canon, 
which all those other books of the new Testament have long since 
been. Nevertheless this man tells us that all these pieces are of 
the same rank, kind, and nature, and that whatever difference is 
made between them results entirely from the circumstance that the 
church hath judged some canonical, others not, received the one 
set, and rejected the other. But there is a wide difference between 
them besides this: otherwise the church could not make such a 
difference between writings, all of which were really in the same 
predicament. For if, as Stapleton says, all these books be of the 
same kind, rank, and nature, why hath the church received the 
one part rather than the other? But now let us answer this argu- 
ment distinctly and in form. The answer shall be fourfold. 

Firstly, I say that the church never did receive, by its judgment 
and approbation, those books of the old Testament which they call 
Deutero-canonical, or Apocryphal of the first class; which point 
we have sufficiently established in the first Question of this contro- 
versy. If they say the church hath received them, let them tell 
us when, and in what council? Now whatever councils they are 
able to produce are merely recent; and no reason can be assigned 
why canonical books should lie so long unsanctioned by the autho- 
rity of the church. 

Secondly, I say that the church neither could, nor ought to 
have received them into the canon. For the church cannot make 
20 


| WHITAKER. | 


306 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


those books canonical and divine, which are not really in themselves 
canonical, sacred, and divine. Even the papists themselves do not 
ascribe so much power to the church, whose office terminates in 
declaring those books to be canonical, and as such commending 
them to the people, which are really and in themselves canonical. 
Now we have already proved that these books possess no such 
character. The council of Laodicea expressly rejects them as non- 
canonical writings, (9/9À«a. akavóric Ta. Jerome determines that 
no religious dogma can be proved by them: whereas, if they were 
canonical, the doctrines of religion might be established from them 
just as well as from the rest. 

Thirdly, we confess that formerly doubts were entertained con- 
cerning certain books of the new Testament, as the Epistle to the 
Hebrews and others, which books were nevertheless afterwards 
received into the canon. But we deny that it is merely on the 
church's authority that these books either are, or are accounted, 
canonical. For I demand, what reason was it that induced or im- 
pelled the church at length to receive them? Certainly no other 
cause but this, that it perceived and recognised the doctrine in 
them to be plainly divine and inspired by God. Why then may 
not the same reason persuade us also to receive them? Any 
other answer which they may give will assign a wholly uncertain 
criterion. 

Fourthly, although in some churches doubts prevailed concern- 
ing these books of the new Testament, yet other churches received 
them. So Eusebius writes concerning these epistles; as specially 
of the Epistle of James, Lib. 1. e. 28. For although he uses the 
term voOeveoÜOau, yet he acknowledges that it was publicly received 
(Oeónuoctevuévgr) in many churches: which these men can not say 
of the Epistle of Barnabas, or the Gospel according to the Hebrews, 
or other such like spurious or adulterated pieces. But if, as Sta- 
pleton says, these books were indeed equal amongst themselves 
and of the same rank (that is, these canonical books and those 
spurious ones which he enumerates), and if the church have caused 
them to be of unequal authority with respect to us, then the church . 
hath fallen into a grievous error: for the church ought not to 
have caused pieces of equal authority intrinsically to appear other- 
wise to us. Now Stapleton says that these books are of the same 


[1 toréov 86 ds vobeverar pev..... dpos O6 topev kai ravras [this and the 
Epistle of Jude] pera rà» Xouràv £v mreiorats Sednpoorevpévas exkAncias.— 
T. 1. p. 175. ed. Heinich. Compare Hug's Einl. 1. 119.] 


v.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 307 


rank in themselves; but in respect of us, he ascribes it to the 
church’s judgment that some are deemed canonical, and not others. 
But surely the church cannot change the quality of books, but only 
declare them to us to be such as they really are in themselves. 
Therefore, if they were all equal, an equal judgment ought to be . 
passed upon them all. That this rests in the arbitrary decision of 
the church, he will never be able to establish: let us nevertheless 
attend to the manner in which he attempts to prove it. 

Stapleton proceeds to cite many testimonies of the fathers, of 
which I will only examine the three principal, and pass over what 
is irrelevant to the question. In the first place, then, he objects to 
us Eusebius (H. E. Lib. rrr. c. 19, or in the Greek, 25), who affirms 
that the plain mark of the canonical books is the tradition of the 
church. I answer: Eusebius there enumerates all the books of the 
new Testament, as well those which were always received by all, 
as those which were rejected by some, and concerning which doubts 
were then entertained in some churches. Eusebius’s own words are 
as follow: **It was needful that we should draw up such a cata- 
logue of these, distinguishing those pieces which, according to the 
ecclesiastical tradition, are true and unfeigned and acknowledged 
scriptures, from those which are not part of the Testament”.” To 
which testimony of Eusebius I briefly return a threefold reply. 
Firstly, we should allow no weight in this matter to the authority 
of Eusebius, because it has no force to establish what Stapleton 
undertakes to prove. For, while he says that he follows the 
ecclesiastical tradition, he distinguishes from the canonical books 
those very pieces which the papists themselves maintain to be 
canonical, as the Book of Tobit, Judith, &c. the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, the Epistle of James, the Apocalypse, &c. Therefore, if 
that tradition which Eusebius follows be true, it will prevail as 
much against the papists themselves as against us. And if that 
tradition be so certain a mark of the books, then the authority of 
some books of the canon is utterly destroyed, as the Epistle of 
James and other epistles, which this tradition of Eusebius, so much 
relied on by Stapleton, banishes from the sacred canon. Let him 
then consider for himself what weight is to be allowed to this tes- 
timony. Secondly, I deny not that ecclesiastical tradition is a means 
of proof, whereby it may be shewn what books are canonical and 


5 , 
[? dvayka(es 8€ kai robrev dyes Tov karáXoyov memou]peÓa, Oiakptvavres rds re 
».” * > ^ 
xarà THY ékkAgaiacTue)» mapadoaw adnOeis kal dmAágrovs Kal dveopoAoyrnuévas 
M M M » 
ypaas, kai ras dXXas Tapa raíras, ovk evdiabyjKous uev, k. r. A.— T. 1. p. 247.] 


20—2 


308 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


what not canonical; yet I say that it is a merely external means 
of proof. Now, in order that we should be thoroughly persuaded 
of the authority of the canonical books, there is need besides of the 
internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. In like manner, with respect 
to God himself and the Trinity, and other articles of our faith, the 
church gives us instruction, and this tradition ought to have with 
all the force of a great argument: and if any were to deny those 
articles, we should press them with the authority of the church as 
an external argument, which hath in it all the strength necessary 
for convincing and refuting the gainsayers. Yet, unless the inter- 
nal testimony of the Holy Spirit be added, fortified by the ample 
authority of scripture, the human mind will never give a solid 
assent with entire acquiescence to those articles. Thirdly, Eusebius 
writes that he enumerates these books as canonical, not on account 
of the ecclesiastical tradition, but according to the ecclesiastical 
tradition, which is a very different thing. His words are not da 
THY Tapacocww, but kara «59v zapaóoguv. Those who suppose 
that there is no difference between these two are greatly deceived. 
For it is through the church's ministry that we believe whatever 
we believe, but not on account of the church's authority ; since our 
faith relies upon and is confirmed by an authority much more august, 
certain and clear, than that of the church. Let this suffice con- 
cerning the testimony of Eusebius. 

The second testimony cited by Stapleton is taken from Augus- 
tine, De Doct. Christ. Lib. u. e. 8, where these words occur: **The 
believer will observe this rule with respect to the canonical 
scriptures, to prefer those which are received by all churches to 
those which some do not receive. In the case of those which are 
not received by all he will prefer those which the more and 
more dignified churches receive to those which fewer churches or 
churches of less authority admit. But if he should find some 
received by the greater number, and others by the more digni- 
fied (though indeed such a case cannot easily be found), yet I 
think that the two classes should be deemed of equal authority!” 


[! Tenebit igitur hune modum in scripturis canonicis, ut eas qus» ab 
omnibus accipiuntur ecclesiis preeponat eis quas quzdam non accipiunt: 
in eis vero que non accipiuntur ab omnibus, preeponat eas quas plures 
gravioresque accipiunt eis quas pauciores minorisque auctoritatis ecclesise 
tenent. Si autem alias invenerit a pluribus, alias a gravioribus haberi, 
(quamquam hoc facile invenire non possit,) equalis tamen auctoritatis eas 
habendas puto.—p. 30. Opp. T. 11.] 


v.] QUESTION THE THIRD, 309 


Thus Augustine; where (says Stapleton) he shews that this whole 
truth, and this difference between the books, depends upon the 
various judgment of the church. I answer, that Stapleton does 
not consider what he says. For, what? shall this whole truth 
and difference between the books depend upon the various judg- 
ment of the church ? Must the truth and authority of the cano- 
nical scripture be made thus to hang upon the judgment of the 
church, and that judgment itself a variable one ?— What asser- 
tion could possibly be more absurd or more insulting than this? 
Churches indeed may judge variously and inconstantly, as was 
plainly the case in the ancient churches: but the scriptures of 
God are always the same, consistent with themselves, and admit- 
ting of no variety. But Augustine in that place is instructing 
tyros and novices, and exhorting them in the first place to attend 
to the church as their mistress and admonisher, and to follow her 
judgment. Nor wil any one deny that this is pious and sound 
advice. We do not immediately understand everything ourselves ; 
we must therefore listen to the church which bids us read these 
books. Afterwards, however, when we either read them ourselves, or 
hear others read them, and duly weigh what they teach, we believe 
their canonicity, not only on account of the testimony or authority 
of the church, but upon the inducement of other and more certain 
arguments, as the witness of the Holy Spirit, and the majesty of 
that heavenly doctrine, which shines forth in the books themselves 
and the whole manner of their teaching. Augustine, therefore, 
would have us ascribe much, but not all, to the church in this 
matter. But two points against the papists may be gathered from 
this place. First, that Augustine never understood or recognised 
such a publie and certain judgment of the church as the papists 
feign;—that is, an external judgment, and that passed by the 
Roman Church, which all Christians should be bound to stand by 
and obey: for then he would have desired a disciple to follow 
this judgment, and consult only the Roman Church. Secondly, it 
may be gathered from this place, that churches may be true 
churches of Christ, and yet judge variously of certain canonical 
books. Whence it manifestly appears that all who have the Holy 
Spirit do not think alike of all the books of scripture. But, to reply 
briefly and in one word,—I say that the dictate, and voice, and 
commendation of the church is the occasion and first rudiment of 
the faith wherewith we believe these books to be divine and given 
by inspiration of God ; but that the form and full assurance depend 


310 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


upon the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, which must needs be 
added before we can certainly know and hold undoubtingly that 
these books are canonical and divine. 

The third testimony produced by Stapleton, which I have re- 
solved to answer, is taken from Augustine's eleventh book against 
Faustus the Manichean, chap. 5, where Augustine writes to this 
effect : * Distinguished from the books of later authors is the ex- 
cellence of the canonical authority of the old and new Testaments ; 
which, having been established in the time of the apostles, hath 
through the successions of bishops and propagations of churches 
been set as it were in a lofty tribunal, demanding the obedience of 
every faithful and pious understanding!" Hence it appears, says 
Stapleton, that the scripture is set in this high tribunal by the ap- 
probation and authority of the church. I answer: Augustine writes 
that the canon of the scriptures was established by the apostles, 
and is now set in this elevated place through the successions of 
bishops and propagations of churches. What does this prove 
against us? Who is so mad as not to perceive that the apostles 
established the canonical scripture, and that pious bishops and 
churches rendered it the highest reverence? But does it follow 
thence, that we do not know what books are canonical by any 
other testimony than that of the church; or that the scripture hath 
no other authority with us than that which the church assigns to 
it? Assuredly not. But from this passage of Augustine we draw 
ihe following observations against the papists. rst, that the 
canon of scripture was settled in the time of the apostles, and con- 
signed in a certain number of books, and that, therefore, those more 
recent councils, by means of which the papists prove that certain 
apocryphal books of the old Testament are canonical, are of no avail 
against us, since the apostles themselves had determined in their own 
times what books should be received into the canon of the old Tes- 
tament. Secondly, that the books of the new Testament were 
written and confirmed by the apostles themselves, and a definite 
number of books marked out. Zhirdly, that if the canon of scrip- 
ture were settled by the apostles themselves, it is not now in the 
power of the church to add any book to this canon, and so increase 


[! Distincta est a posterioribus libris excellentia canonice auctoritatis 
veteris et novi Testamenti, quas, apostolorum confirmata temporibus, per 
successiones episcoporum et propagationes ecclesiarum tanquam in sede 
quadam sublimiter constituta est, cui serviat omnis fidelis et pius intellectus. 
—p. 267. Opp. T. x.] 


v.] QUESTION THE THIRD. alt 


the number of the canonical books; which yet Stapleton affirms in 
the 14th chapter of this book. Jerome in his Catalogue, and other 
authors write that John lived the longest of all the apostles, so as 
to be able to see all the books and confirm them, and, if any 
fictitious books were published, to distinguish them from the sacred 
and truly canonical books. Jerome?, in his Catalogue, under the 
article Luxe, relates that a certain book concerning the acts of Paul 
was presented to John, but that the author was discovered and the 
book condemned by the authority of the apostle. Tertullian? in 
his Prescriptions says, that the very autographs of the apostles 
themselves were preserved in his time safe in the churches; and 
the same writer remarks in the same place, * We determine the 
document of the gospel to have the apostles for its authors*.”  Au- 
gustine, Epist. 195, asserts that these seriptures were received to the 
height of canonical authority by the apostles themselves. The fact 
that afterwards some persons entertained doubts of certain parts had 
its origin not in the scriptures themselves, but in our infirmity. 
But perhaps some one may object: If the apostles, who were 
the pastors of the church, had the power of consigning the 
canon and confirming the canonical scriptures, then the same privi- 
lege will belong to the other pastors of the church who succeed 
them, when assembled together in one place. I answer, the apo- 
stles may be considered under a twofold aspect: firstly, as the 
principal teachers of the church ; secondly, as certain immediate 
organs, chosen by God and designated for the special office of 
writing and publishing the sacred books. This was so peculiar 
to themselves, that in this respect they were placed out of the con- 
dition of all other men. Now the apostles’ consignation of the 
canon of scripture is to be referred not to the authority of the 
church, but to that of God. It was not as the ministers of the 
church that they consigned it, but as the unerring organs of the 
Holy Ghost, fortified by a divine authority, and commended to the 


[2 Opp. T. 1. 827. This piece was the story of Thecla, printed by Grabe 
in the first vol. of his Spicilegium. ] 

[3 Percurre ecclesias apostolicas, apud quas ipse adhuc cathedre apos- 
tolorum suis locis presidentur, apud quas ipsz authentice litere eorum 
recitantur.—c. 36. ed. Leopold. Lips. 1841. P. 3. p. 25.] 

[* This is a mistake. The passage cited occurs in the 4th Book, Adv. 
Mare. e. 2. (p. 147): Constituimus imprimis evangelicum instrumentum 
apostolos auctores habere.] 

[> Ep. 82. Opp. T. rr. p. 253. Commendata.. . ab ipsis apostolis] 


312 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


faith of all. For if they had done this as ordinary ministers, then 
all pastors who succeed the apostles would have the like power. 
Whence it is manifest that this authority of theirs was of an 
extraordinary kind. Therefore the apostles consigned the canon of 
scripture, not as men or ministers, but as the representative of 
God, the tongue of the Holy Spirit, and, as it were, a divine 
oracle. Wherefore this act can avail nothing towards establishing 
the perpetual authority of the church. And so much for Stapleton’s 
third argument. 





CHAPTER VI. 


WHEREIN THE FOURTH ARGUMENT OF OUR OPPONENTS IS 
ANSWERED. 


Now follows his fourth argument, which is handled in Lib. rx. 
c. 7, and is to this effect: The apocryphal books of the second 
class are therefore not accounted divine, because the church hath 
never chosen to approve them. Therefore this whole matter 
(namely, of receiving and rejecting books) depends upon the au- 
thority and judgment of the church. He calls those books apocryphal 
of the second class, which have been published under the name 
of the apostles, either by hereties, or philosophers, or others: of 
which kind were, the revelation of Paul, the gospel of Judas 
Iscariot, the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Matthias, the gospel 
of Andrew, and the gospel of Peter, which pope Innocent I. in his 
third epistle testifies to have been published by philosophers. 
These books, says Stapleton, the church hath rejected and repu- 
diated. Therefore, it appertains to the church to determine concern- 
ing canonical books, and to consign a certain canon of scripture. 

I answer, that this argument proves nothing; and that for 
three reasons. The first is, because we have already granted that 
it appertains to the office, and consequently to the authority, of the 
church, to distinguish the true and genuine books from spurious. 
For it possesses the Spirit of God, under whose instruction it hears 
the voice of its Spouse and recognises his teaching. For that same 
Spirit, by whom those books were written, still resides in the 
church, although not always in the same measure. All this, there- 
fore, we allow; but we demand to know how it follows from these 


vi.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 318 


premises, that we can judge by no other criterion than the church’s 
determination of their non-canonicity, that these books deserve to 
be rejected and refused? Would any one draw so loose and in- 
consequent a conclusion, who trusted to be able to gain his cause by 
legitimate arguments? For our parts, we affirm that there are 
other criterions. Let them tell us upon what grounds the church 
deems these books spurious; and I will answer, that we also may 
arrive at the same conclusion upon the same inducements. Secondly, 
we concede that against heretics an argument may be taken from 
the authority and consent of the church, shewing that, since the 
whole church hath rejected those books, we justly allow them to 
deserve rejection. For who is there so bold and impudent as not 
to be greatly moved by the authority of the catholic church? It 
hath seen and examined these books, and can judge better of them 
than any private person, because endowed with a greater and more 
ample abundance of the Holy Spirit and of judgment: since it 
hath, with so much judgment and deliberation, rejected certain 
books, we ought not, without any reason, to retain them. This ar- 
gument, therefore, hath very great weight against hereties, and 
heretics may be very much pressed and urged by it; nor yet 
hereties alone, but other opponents also who would either receive 
supposititious books, or reject really canonical. This argument 
the fathers frequently used; but, nevertheless, have nowhere said 
that all this depended upon the authority of the church, or that 
this was either the sole or the greatest argument, whereby heretics 
and other adversaries, who held wrong sentiments concerning these 
books, might be refuted. Nay, some of those very fathers whom 
Stapleton eites have used other arguments upon this subject, as will 
appear presently. Thirdly, therefore, those fathers who used this 
argument which is derived from the authority of the church, did 
not reject these apocryphal books of the second class merely on 
account of the church's authority, and solely upon the church's 
external judgment delivered as it were in court; but on aecount of 
other proofs which were taken and derived out of the books them- 
selves. For those books had generally open errors and perverse 
doctrines, from which the church could easily determine that they 
were fictitious and spurious books, and not truly canonical. This is 
evident from the testimony of those very fathers, whom Stapleton 
alleges in his own behalf in this cause, that is, Eusebius and 
Augustine. 

Eusebius, in his third book, chap. xxv. of the Greek copy, 


314 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


speaking of the gospels of Thomas, Peter, Matthias, and other apo- 
cryphal books of the second class, explains at the end of his dis- 
course, why these books were rejected by the church, in the following 
words: ‘The very diction, character, and phraseology, are foreign 
from the apostolic. Their drift is widely different from the or- 
thodox religion and doctrine, and therefore they are deservedly 
rejected as spurious books and figments of the heretics.” It 1s better 
to hear Eusebius’s own words: [loppw dé zov kai 0 tis Ppacews 
mapd TO 00s TO aTO0G'TONKOV €vaAXaet xapakT1)p, 7 gii yv, 
Kal TOV év QUTOLS Qepou&vov Trpoatpeats, TÀE€LOTOV óc OV Tie 
aX 0Us opBocoEías arqoovea, Ort ó€ aiperiay dvd piv ava- 
wAdcpaTa Tuyyaver capes mapistnow' bev ovo év voÜos 
QUTa KaTATAKTEOV, GAN ws arora TwavTn kai dvoce(3ij Tapa- 
T5yTcoy!, Here we may remark Stapleton’s fidelity. He would 
fain prove from the testimony of Eusebius, that these books are to 
be rejected for no other reason but because the church hath rejected 
them; and he cites a place from this very chapter, and from the 
words immediately preceding, where it is said: “ None of the ec- 
clesiastical writers hath ever vouchsafed to make mention of these 
books in his writings? Here he breaks off the testimony of 
Eusebius: whereas the words quoted above follow immediately, 
whieh he hath altogether omitted, because they make against 
himself. In those words Eusebius tells us that, besides the testi- 
mony of the church, there are two other ways and marks whereby 
we may perceive that these books are not canonical: first, t@ 
xXapaxtnpt THs Qpacéws, from the style and character, because 
the apostles never wrote or spoke after such a fashion; whence it 
appears that, in the opinion of Eusebius, the phrase and diction is 
a mark of the canonical books: secondly, 77 "yv Kal TH 
mpoapece, from the sentiments and design; that is, from the 
kind of doctrine delivered in these books, which, says Eusebius, is 
inexpressibly different from sound doctrine and orthodox religion, 
so that they not only should not be received, but should be re- 
jected and abhorred as the impure and wicked productions of the 
heretics. Yet Stapleton would fain persuade us that these books — 
ought to be rejected upon no other account but because the church 
hath rejected them. Besides, Eusebius in the same book, chap. 32,3 


[! T. x. pp. 247—50. ed. Heinichen. ] 

[2 dy ovdev otSapads ev ovyypappatt Trav Kata Siadoyas éxkAnovaoTiKey 
Tis dvjp eis pynunyv ayayew n&iooev.—ld. ibid. ] 

(3 Euseb. H. E. rr. c. 38. pp. 280, 1. wt supra. ] 


VI. | QUESTION THE THIRD. 315 


rejects the dispute of Peter with Apion, on account of its not 
maintaining the pure unblemished signature of apostolic and or- 
thodox doctrine. Oude yap, says he, kaÜapov amoaroXtijs opÜo- 
Oofías atocw ler Tov yapaxTypa: as much as to say, it is manifest 
that this dispute was not held by an apostle, since it wants the true 
and genuine mark of apostolical faith and preaching; it does not 
agree with the doctrine of Peter, and therefore it is falsely ascribed 
to Peter. 

So much for the testimony of Eusebius. I proceed now to 
Augustine, who certainly never wrote as Stapleton affirms him 
to have written, but to a far different effect. He does not say 
that these books were held to be apocryphal solely because they 
were full of lies, and contained many things impious and false. In 
his 98th tractate upon John, having mentioned the revelation of 
Paul, he subjoins, that it is not received by the church: but 
wherefore? Is it because it was placed in the judgment of the 
church alone to receive or not receive it? By no means; but 
because it was “feigned” by certain * vain” men, and because it 
was “full of fables&" Well then, do we reject, upon no other 
account but the church’s testimony, a book “feigned by vain men, 
and full of fables?” Yea, rather we reject it for being such. The 
same Augustine, against Faustus the Manichean, Lib. xxi. c. 79, 
says that the Manichees read certain books written by “ stitchers- 
together of fables®.” He means the gospels of Matthias, Andrew, 
Peter, and those other books which Stapleton hath before enu- 
merated. These books therefore were not received by the church, 
because they were full of fables, not merely because the church 
chose to reject them. Besides, the same Augustine, in his work 
de coneensu Kvangelistarum, Lib. 1. c. 1,9 discusses the question 
why, since so many had written of the actions and doctrine both of 
Christ and of the apostles, only four gospels and the Acts of the 
Apostles were received, and assigns two reasons: first, because the 
men who wrote those other books were not such as the church 
deemed worthy of credit, that is, were not endowed with the extra- 
ordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit, or so furnished for the task as 
all those ought to be who write of such sacred and divine matters ; 


[* Qua occasione vani quidam Apocalypsin Pauli, quam sane non recipit 
ecclesia, nescio quibus fabulis plenam, stultissima prseesumptione finxerunt. 
—ÜOpp: T. 3v. p.-989.] 

[> Legunt scripturas apocryphas Manichei, a nescio quibus sutoribus 
Jabularwm sub apostolorum nomine scriptas, ete.—T. x. p. 490.] 

[9 T. rv. p. 1. Bassan. 1797.] 


316 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. Lou. 


secondly, because they did not write with the same fidelity, but 
introduced many things which clash and are at variance with the 
catholic faith and rule of apostolic doctrine. Therefore, the fathers 
themselves allow that there are other arguments for rejecting these 
books, besides the sole authority of the church. As to the Acts of 
the Apostles, Augustine writes in that same place, that no others 
wrote with the same fidelity as Luke, and therefore that his book 
only was received. What could possibly be spoken more plainly ? 
These books were at variance with the rule and analogy of faith, 
and therefore ought not to have been received, neither could the 
church receive them, nor do otherwise than reject and condemn 
such books. Now in like manner as the church formerly rejected 
those books upon this account, so we also would, on the same 
account, now reject and condemn them, if they were still extant. 

So much for the fourth argument brought by Stapleton. It re- 
mains now that we address ourselves to his fifth. 





CHAPTER VII. 


OF THE FIFTH ARGUMENT OF OUR ADVERSARIES, 


STAPLETON'S fifth argument is contained in the eighth chapter 
of his ninth book, and is to this effect: Heretics rejecting any part 
of scripture, or persons doubting any canonical book, are refuted by 
the authority and tradition of the church. Therefore it is the 
privilege of the church to consign the canon of scripture. Here he 
is very large in his citations of testimonies from Augustine, yet to 
no advantage of his cause; since they in no way weaken ours, but 
prove a totally different thing, and therefore might be wholly 
omitted. 

I answer, therefore, that this argument is inconsequential : 
heretics are refuted by the authority of the church; therefore 
there is no other stronger argument by which the canon of scrip- 
ture can be established. This is just as if one were to argue 
thus: atheists who deny the existence of God are refuted by the | 
authority of the church, which hath ever confessed one God, the 
maker of all things; therefore there is no other argument whereby 
either we or others can be convinced of God’s existence, no more 
certain reason whereby either they may be refuted, or we esta- 
blished in the truth. Yea, rather the creatures themselves—the 
heaven and the earth—cry out that there is a God, as saith the 


VII. | | QUESTION THE THIRD. 317 


prophet: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firma- 
ment sheweth his handy-work." This is a more certain argument 
for the confutation and conviction of the atheists than the testi- 
mony of the church ; but for the most certain argument of all is 
the testimony of the Spirit, without which it is in vain that all 
other proofs are applied. It is manifest therefore, that this is a 
plain fallacy of inconsequence, when our adversary disputes thus: 
this is an argument, therefore it is the sole argument, or there is 
no other argument besides. The inconsequence of such reasoning 
will easily appear from a parallel instance. The philosophers may be 
so refuted by arguments of their own sort, as to be forced to acknow- 
ledge the truth of our religion: are there then no other but philo- 
sophical arguments by which they can be refuted ? Far from it. 
However, to return a fuller answer: we observe that the 
fathers have indeed used this argument, and that we also may 
use it against the heretics; because, since heretics are without the 
Holy Spirit, and are ignorant of the phraseology and sense of 
scripture, they will doubtless be more moved by the authority and 
testimony of men, than either of God or of the scripture. They 
attribute much to the testimony of men, so as that there is no 
external argument with which, for the most part, they can be 
pressed more strongly and effectually. For such reasoning as this 
hath ever had very great weight and influence with all, even the 
worst of men: the church hath ever judged these books canonical ; 
therefore you ought not to reject, or doubt concerning them. A 
man must be shameless indeed, who will not be moved by this 
argument. But it is one thing to force men to acknowledge the 
scriptures, and quite another to convince them of their truth. 
Heretics may perhaps be forced not only by the authority and 
testimony of the church, but also by the style of scripture, and 
the exact harmony between the old and new Testaments; which 
two points are of no less avail than the testimony of the church for 
inducing us to confess that these books are canonical: but to per- 
suade our souls thoroughly, it is not these or any other arguments 
of the same kind that can avail, but only the voice of the Holy 
Spirit speaking inwardly in our hearts. For in like manner as a 
man may be compelled by many arguments taken from nature to 
confess the being of God, and yet will never meanwhile be 
persuaded of it in his conscience, until the Holy Spirit hath 
infused this faith and persuasion into his heart; so we may indeed 
be compelled by the authority of the church to acknowledge the 


918 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cu. 


canonicity of the scripture, and yet can never be brought to 
acquiesce in it as a firm and solid truth, until the internal testimony 
of the Holy Spirit be added. And this argument persuades not 
others but ourselves, and prevails not upon others but upon our- 
selves. We do not therefore endeavour to refute others by the 
secret testimony of the Spirit, since it is peculiar to the individual, 
private and internal; but by common arguments taken from the 
books themselves, and from the judgment of the church, which are 
of such a nature as to move any one not wholly abandoned, and to 
leave him nothing to say against them. But it is not sufficient 
for us that our judgment should be compelled and coerced; the 
Holy Spirit must excite our whole mind to yield assent. Now 
although the fathers frequently use this argument [from authority ], 
they do not therefore take away other arguments; so that the 
papists, Stapleton and the rest, err greatly in leaving us no others. 
We, for our part, do not take away this argument, as they falsely 
affirm of us, but allow it to be good, and make use of it; but con- 
tend nevertheless that there are some other arguments of a firmer 
and more certain nature. 

It is not necessary that we should reply severally to all those 
testimonies which Stapleton adduces, since we fully allow that 
they are all most true. The clearest and strongest testimony 
which he alleges is taken from Augustine's book contra Epistol. 
Fund. c. 5; where Augustine, being about to cite something from 
the Acts of the Apostles (which book the Manichees rejected, 
because, Acts i., the Holy Ghost is said to have descended upon 
the apostles, whereas they affirmed that his inspiration belonged 
solely to themselves), he prefaces the quotation with these words: 
“T must needs believe this book, if I believe the gospel, since 
catholic authority commends both books to me alike!" Therefore 
(says Stapleton) we repose faith in the canonical books solely on 
account of the church’s authority. I answer, as I have frequently 
. done already, that we are indeed compelled by the authority of 
the church to believe these books canonical, but that we do not 
depend upon this argument alone, since we are supplied with other 
and stronger evidence. Heretics indeed are coerced by this one 
argument, and it is specially to be urged against obstinate persons; 
but those who are not disturbed by passion, not dishonest, not 


[1 Necesse est me credere huie libro, si credo Evangelio, cum utramque 
scripturam similiter mihi catholica commendat auctoritas.—T. x. p. 185.] 


vir. | | . QUESTION THE THIRD. 319 


obstinate, but honest and desirous of truth, may be persuaded by 
many other arguments. So much may be proved from Augustine 
himself in his book de Utilit. Credendi, cap. 3, where he enume- 
rates several other arguments, such as these: first, the order of 
the things ; secondly, the causes of the sayings and acts; thirdly, 
the exact agreement of the old Testament with the new, “so as 
that not a tittle is left which is not in unison.” These arguments 
must be allowed to have great force in them; but, since heretics 
pay but little care and attention to such matters, they must be 
pressed with the authority of the church. The same Augustine 
also, in the 5th chapter of that same book, writes that he can 
easily persuade any one that this or that book of scripture is cano- 
nical, if he be met with a candid mind not obstinate in its preju- 
dices. And in chap. 2, he gives the reason why he makes such 
frequent use of this argument derived from the authority of the 
church, and handles it so diligently,—namely, because “ the 
scriptures may be popularly accused, but cannot be popularly 
defended.” For the Manichees rendered the old Testament odious 
with the people by alleging the adultery of David, Jacob’s 
marriage with two sisters, and many similar things to be found in 
the old Testament, upon which they declaimed largely to the 
populace. This is the popular accusation alluded to by Augustine. 
When therefore the holy father was anxious to defend the old 
Testament, and the scripture itself supplied no such popular argu- 
ment; he recalled his adversaries to the common authority of the 
church, which was an argument no less popular than their own. 
Now we have said enough upon Stapleton’s fifth argument. 





CHAPTER VIII. 


OF THE SIXTH ARGUMENT OF OUR ADVERSARIES, 


His sixth argument is contained in the ninth chapter of his 
ninth book, and is taken from the authority of Augustine, contra 
Epist. Fund. c. 5, where he says: “I would not believe the gospel, 
if the authority of the catholic church did not move me®.” These 


[? Ego vero non crederem evangelio, nisi me catholics ecclesiee com- 
moveret auctoritas.—See Laud's Conference, $. 16. n. 19. p. 81. et seqq. 
Lond. 1639.] 


320 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


words of Augustine, says Stapleton, have distressed the protestants. 
Doubtless they have, and no wonder, since, as he confesses in the 
same place, they have deceived even some of the schoolmen also. 
They are indeed special favourites, and always in the mouths of 
the papists generally; so that a papist can scarce exchange three 
words with you, without presently objecting this testimony of 
Augustine. This argument is answered by Calvin, Instit. Lib. 1. e. 7. 
and by Museulus and Peter Martyr, by alleging that Augustine 
speaks of himself as a Manichean; that he meant that he, when a 
Manichean, was moved by the authority of the church to believe 
the scriptures. Musculus interprets the words so as to take crede- 
rem for credidissem, and commoveret for commovisset; or, “I, 
that is, when a Manichean, or if I were a Manichean, would not 
believe the gospel, &c.” And indeed this interpretation is most 
true: for it is evident from the same chapter that Augustine is 
speaking of himself as a Manichean. In the words immediately pre- 
ceding he says: * What would you do with one who said, I do not 
believe?” Then he subjoins: ‘But I would not believe the gospel, 
&c." He speaks, therefore, of himself in an unbelieving state. And 
in the same chapter, in the words immediately following, he says: 
* Those whom I obeyed when they said to me, Believe the gospel, 
why should I not obey when they tell me, Believe not Mani?” 
Whence 1t is plain that he speaks of himself as an unbeliever, and 
informs us how he first was converted from a Manichean to be a 
catholie, namely, by listening to the voice of the church. 

But Stapleton denies this, and endeavours to prove that 
he speaks of himself as a catholie by several arguments. His 
first reason is, because an infidel does not allow anything to the 
authority of the church. I answer, that Augustine was not alto- 
gether an infidel. He was indeed a heretic, but one most desirous 
of truth, and no obstinate heretic. He was a heretic, not from 
malice, but from error of opinion. Nor did he doubt, even when 
he was a heretic, that he ought to agree and communicate with the 
true church, although he did not judge aright which was the true 
church. Those who are so disposed are easily moved by the . 
authority of the true church. Stapleton’s second reason is, because 
a heretic is not moved by the authority of the catholic church, 
which he does not acknowledge. I answer, that Augustine speaks 
of the church as he thought of it now that he was a catholic, not 
as he thought of it formerly when he was a Manichean. His third 
reason is, because infidels do not now believe the preaching minis- 


vill. | QUESTION THE THIRD. 921 


ters, as Augustine in that same chapter affirms that he did. I 
answer: infidels do not, indeed, while they continue infidels, obey 
the preaching of the ministers of the church; but they may be 
brought to faith by the preaching of the word, and then they will 
obey. And it was in this very way that Augustine was made a 
catholie from a Manichean. His fourth reason is, because Augus- 
tine in this chapter says of the Acts of the Apostles, “I must 
needs believe this book.” Therefore (says Stapleton) he speaks of 
himself as he then was, namely, as a catholic. I answer, that this 
is no reason. For whether he speak of himself as a catholic or as 
a Manichean, it was needful by all means that he should believe 
this book, inasmuch as it is the word of God: for all alike must 
needs either receive or reject the Gospels and the Acts together. 
His fifth reason is, because Augustine writes in the fourth chapter 
of this book, that even when he was a bishop, he was kept in the 
church, on account of the name of the church and the consent of 
people and nations. I answer, that Augustine does indeed confess 
this: yet nevertheless, besides these two, he alleges another stronger 
argument in that same chapter, namely the absolutely constant 
truth of doctrine; which if the Manicheans could allege in their 
behalf, he promises that he would be willing to desert the name of 
the church and the consent of people and nations, and return to 
them. Therefore he ascribed more to the truth of doctrine than 
to the judgment and authority of the church. 

Finally, says Stapleton, Augustine everywhere in all the places 
before alleged attributes to the church the privilege of consigning the 
canon of scripture.to the faithful. I answer, in the first place, it would 
be repugnant to Augustine himself to make him say that, now that 
he was a believer and a catholic, he would not believe the gospel, 
save only upon the authority of the church; since he himself in the 
fourteenth chapter of this book says that we, when we believe and 
are become strong in faith, understand what we believe not now by 
the help of men, but by God himself internally confirming and 
illuminating our minds. The faithful, therefore, do not believe 
merely on account of the church’s authority. Secondly, I say that 
this is also repugnant to reason itself. For all the faithful are 
endowed with the Holy Spirit. Now his authority is greater than 
that of the church. Therefore it is not to be doubted that they 
are kept in the true faith by his rather than by the church’s 
authority. Thirdly, what if we were to acknowledge that the 


[ WHITAKER. | 2 


322 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


faithful] themselves are moved by the authority of the church to 
receive the scriptures ? It does not follow thence, that their inti- 
mate inward persuasion is produced by the same way, or that they 
are induced by no other and stronger reason. What Christian is 
there whom the church of Christ, commending the scriptures to 
him, does not move? But to be moved is one thing, and to be 
persuaded is another. The Samaritan woman who is mentioned in 
John iv. moved many of her countrymen by her testimony to 
Christ, and excited them to flock to Christ and lend his instructions 
a favourable and willing attention. But the same persons afterwards, 
when they had heard Christ, said to the woman, ** Now we believe 
not on account of thy speech (dia 75v conv AaXuav), but because we 
have heard him ourselves, and know that this is the Christ, the 
Saviour of the world." So the authority of the church may at first 
move us to acknowledge the scriptures: but afterwards, when we 
have ourselves read the scriptures, and understand them, then we 
conceive a true faith, and believe, not because the church judges 
that we should believe, but, as for many other more certain argu- 
ments, so for this specially, because the Holy Spirit persuades us 
internally that these are the words of God. 

But since this testimony of Augustine is urged so vehe- 
mently by Stapleton, other papists shall easily either teach or 
remind him, how little force it hath to establish the perpetual 
authority of the church.  Driedo, Lib. tv. c. 4, determines that 
Augustine speaks in these words of the primitive church of the 
apostles: for if Augustine were now alive, and meant to speak of 
the church such as it now is, he would rather say, *I would not 
acknowledge such men to be the church of Christ, unless the autho- 
rity of the four Gospels taught me so."  Wherefore we do not 
now believe the gospel on account of the church, but, on the con- 
trary, the church on account of the gospel. Whence also it fol- 
lows that the gospel is the truest mark of the church. Bellarmine 
himself, in his MSS. Lectures upon the Secunda Secunde of Aquinas, 
Quest. 1. art. i. Dub. 1, tells us, that Augustine “speaks of the 
church as the propounding cause, not as the prime foundation of 
faith." For we should not believe the gospel unless the catholic 
church propounded it: which, no doubt, is true. For, unless the 
church commended the sacred books to us, and led us, as it were, 
by the hand, to the very fountains of divine truth, we should never 
emerge out of the darkest shades of error. But does it. therefore 


vit. ] | QUESTION THE THIRD. 323. 


follow that the apocryphal books cannot be distinguished from the 
canonical otherwise than by the mere authority of the church? 
By no means. And there is no need that we should say more of 
this sixth argument. 





CHAPTER IX. 
OF THE SEVENTH ARGUMENT OF OUR ADVERSARIES. 


Tue seventh argument is contained in Book rx. chap. 10, 
where he joins other fathers to Augustine, for the purpose of 
proving, that the canon of scripture must be consigned by the 
authority of the church. But what else do all those fathers prove 
but this, that the scripture should be received because it hath ever 
been received by the church, and that certain books should be 
rejected because they have ever been rejected by the church? 
Now this we most willingly confess. For we concede that the 
authority of the church is one argument, and a good one too: but 
it does not immediately follow either that it is the only argument, 
or that this whole matter depends upon the authority of the church. 
I might, therefore, disregard all those testimonies, and pass them 
over as irrelevant; but I prefer to touch upon them briefly, lest I 
should seem to have omitted anything. Now the testimonies, which 
Stapleton alleges in this chapter, are five in number: namely, from 
Theodoret, Tertullian, Irenzus, the first council of Toledo, and 
Serapion the bishop of Antioch; to each of which severally we shall 
give a brief reply. 

Theodoret, in his argument to the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
writes thus against the Arians, who denied the authority of that 
epistle: * If nothing else, they should at least have respected 
the length of time during which the disciples of the truth have 
been wont to read this epistle continually in the churches!" I 
answer: What is all this to us? Nothing whatever. We grant 
that this epistle is to be embraced with all reverence, and that its 
opponents may be pressed and coerced by the argument drawn 


1 ra de > 4 *, 4 de v ^ l4 ^ id 67 4 ^ , 
€óet OE QUTOUS, EL Kat poer ETEPOV, TOU Xpovou yovv atóegUgvat TO pnkos, €» 

A a T AN \ , x D > ^ > , 2 , 8 , AM A B 
n 7vOe TV ETLOTOANHY EV TALS ékkAgatats avaylV@OKOVTES veTeAeoay TNS EKKA)= 


cías ot rpdpiuot.—Theod. Argum. in Heb. ] Jen 
21—2 


324 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


from antiquity. But, I beseech you, hath Theodoret written that 
nothing else gains authority for this epistle, save this very antiquity 
of time? By no means, but rather quite the opposite, as is manifest 
from his words: for he says, “if there were nothing else," they 
should be moved by the very length of time. Therefore, he in- 
timates that there were other arguments, besides antiquity of time, 
whereby the authority of this epistle might be confirmed. And 
amongst these other arguments the principal, no doubt, was the 
very doctrine itself of the epistle, which the church acknowledges by 
the assistance of the Holy Spirit. For what else can be adduced ? 
Thus, therefore, this first testimony alleged by Stapleton is an- 
swered easily, and almost without any effort. 

But peradventure the second is clearer, which we have now, 
in the next place, to discuss. It is that of Tertullian in his book of 
Prescriptions against the heretics, where these words are to be 
found: “I wil allege as a prescription, that what the apostles 
preached should not otherwise be proved, but through those same 
churches which the apostles themselves founded!" What (says 
Stapleton) could possibly be more plainly said? I answer: I con- 
fess indeed that the words are plain, but I affirm that Tertullian 
speaks not of the apostolic epistles, but of the apostolic doctrine ; 
which is sufficiently manifest from the words immediately preceding. 
For thus he writes: ** We draw up therefore this prescriptive plea: 
if the Lord Jesus Christ sent apostles to preach, then no other 
preachers are to be received than those whom Christ instructed ; 
because no man knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom 
the Son hath revealed him, and the Son seems to have revealed 
him to no others than the apostles, whom he sent to preach, no 
doubt, that which he had revealed to them?." Then he applies 
this prescription, namely, that the doctrine which the apostles 
preached should not be proved in any other way but through 
those churches which they founded. In which words Tertullian 
does not reject, however, all other testimonies. For if this had 

[| Quid autem preedicaverint, id est, quid illis Christus revelaverit, et hic 
prescribam non aliter probari debere, nisi per easdem ecclesias quas ipsi 
Apostoli condiderunt.—c. 21. p. 14.] 

[2 Hine igitur dirigimus preescriptionem, si Dominus Jesus Christus apos- 
tolos misit ad preedicandum, alios non esse recipiendos preedicatores quam 
quos Christus instituit, quia nec alius Patrem novit nisi Filius et cui Filius 
revelavit; nec aliis videtur revelasse Filius quam apostolis, quos misit ad 
preedicandum utique quod illis revelavit.—Zbid. Whitaker reads hanc for 
hine. I know not on what authority.) 


pl | QUESTION THE THIRD. 925 


been his meaning, that the evidence of the apostolical epistles to 
us depended entirely upon the approbation of the apostolical 
churches, then he would have rejected the testimony of the Holy 
Spirit; which he certainly never meant to do. Nay, this would 
not be consistent even with our adversary's own defence. For he, 
in the last chapter of this his ninth book, will have the canon of 
scripture to be consigned by the rule of faith. Therefore, besides 
the approbation of the church, he would have the rule of faith 
also to be necessary ; for the rule of faith is a different thing from 
the external judgment of the church. But Tertullian's meaning, 
as appears from the words following, is, that every doctrine is true 
which agrees and harmonises with that doctrine of the churches, 
which they received from the apostles, and the apostles from 
Christ ; and that whatever does not so agree is adulterate and false. 
For thus he subjoins: *If these things be so, it follows thence, 
that every doctrine which agrees with those apostolical churches, 
from whose wombs the faith derived its origin, is to be accounted 
true; and that that is undoubtedly to be held, which the churches 
received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from 
God ; but all other doctrine is to be judged beforehand to be false?." 
This is so far from taking away the testimony of the Holy Spirit, 
that it rather establishes it; for the Holy Spirit is the judge of 
apostolical doctrine. Therefore he attributes nothing to the church, 
unless it hold this doctrine. Besides, to say, as Tertullian says, 
that “doctrine should be proved by the church," is a different 
thing from saying that it should be received only on the authority 
of the church, which Stapleton means. We concede the former, 
especially as far as the apostolieal churches are concerned, but the 
latter by no means. For although it be through the church that 
we know doctrine, yet that it is now upon the authority of the 
Holy Spirit that we believe, even our adversaries themselves allow, 
as ye shall hear hereafter. Therefore, when Tertullian speaks of 
sound and apostolieal doctrine, although he says that it should 
agree with the faith of the apostolie churches, he nevertheless does 
not, on that account, set aside the testimony of the Holy Spirit. 

So much upon the testimony of Tertullian. 1 come now to 


[3 Si hec ita sunt, constat proinde omnem doctrinam, qu: cum illis 
ecclesiis apostolicis, matricibus et originalibus fidei, conspiret, veritati depu- 
tandam, id sine dubio tenentem quod ecclesize ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo, 
Christus a Deo aecepit; reliquam vero omnem doctrinam de mendacio pre- 
judicandam.—ZJbid. ] 


326 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


Irenzus, from whom Stapleton quotes some words, which, it must 
be allowed, have very little force in them. For we confess with 
Irenzus, that the authority of the church is a firm and compendious 
demonstration of the canonical doctrine a posteriori, but not a 
priori: but we deny that this is the sole, or the greatest, or the 
strongest argument. This Stapleton could not prove from Irenzus. 
Besides, when Stapleton concedes out of Irenzus, that heretics who 
denied some scriptures were refuted by the scriptures which they 
received, does he not affirm, exactly as we would have it, that scrip- 
ture may be proved by scripture, and that scripture may be other- 
wise recognised and proved than by the testimony of the church ? 

His fourth testimony is taken from the first council of Toledo, 
the twenty-first canon of which is to this effect: * If any shall say 
or believe that any other scriptures are to be received, save those 
which the church hath received, let him be anathema!.” I answer: 
I do not see why I and all good Christians may not be permitted 
to say Amen to these words. For we think no otherwise than we 
are directed in this canon, and receive or reject no book without 
the testimony and example of the catholic church. Wherefore this 
denunciation of an anathema touches us in no way. But I wonder 
that Stapleton should be so stupid as not to understand or remark 
how weak is this argument of his: No scriptures should be re- 
ceived, which have not been received and approved by the church : 
therefore, scriptures are only to be received on account of the 
church's testimony. No scriptures should be rejected, but those 
which the church hath rejected: therefore the apocryphal writings 
are to be rejected solely on that account, because the church hath 
rejected them. » 

And of this testimony enough hath been said. Now follows 
the fifth and last, which is that of a certain Serapion, bishop of 
Antioch, of whom Eusebius speaks H. E. Lib. vi. c. 11, taken from 
an epistle of his: * We," says Serapion, “refuse certain books 
falsely inseribed with the names of the apostles, knowing that we 
have never received such?" Now he speaks of the gospel of 


[! Si quis dixerit aut crediderit alias scripturas recipiendas esse prseter 
illas quas ecclesia recepit, anathema sit.—Anathem. x11. col. 328. Collect. 
Cann. Eccles. Hispan. Matriti. 1808.] 

[2 “Hyets yap, adeAdol, kai IIérpov kai rovs dAXovs amoardAous arrobeyoueba 
@s Xpiwróv: ta € dvdpati abr» Wevderiypapa as eyumeipor mapacrovpeba, 
ywookovree Ott rà ToLadTa ov mapeAáBopney.—H. E. Lib. vi. c. 12. pp. 177—8. 
T. rr. ed. Heinich.] 


Ix. | | QUESTION THE THIRD. 327 


Peter, which used to be read in some churches. I answer: That 
book was rejected by Serapion on account of the many falsehoods 
which were found in it, as is plain from the words which follow : 
therefore it was not rejected merely on account of the authority 
of the church. In this place Stapleton hath, as he often does, 
made use of a notable artifice. We, says Serapion, have not re- 
ceived the book, ws Eumerpot, as being skilful and expert; yww- 
ckovres OTL Ta Towra ov raped oper. And Eusebius says 
that he refuted 74 \evoas €v avT@ eipmueva, “the falsehoods 
contained in it." The book, therefore, was interspersed with some 
falsehoods and impostures. Besides, Stapleton omits some words 
which have great force in them, as will manifestly appear to any 
one who will look at the passage. For Serapion says?, at the end 
of that chapter, that he had found very many things opÜov Xo*yov, 
sound, in that book, but some also 7 pocó.eoTaAp€va, foreign from 
and at variance with the orthodox faith, and therefore had re- 
jected it. He therefore did not reject it merely on account of 
the church's judgment, of whieh no mention is here made, but 
on account of the doctrine delivered in the book itself. This 
seventh argument, and the sixth also, which immediately preceded 
it, were merely human; and how weak such arguments are in 
causes of faith, every one must understand. 





CHAPTER X. 
OF THE TWO REMAINING ARGUMENTS OF OUR ADVERSARIES. 


I come now to the eighth and last argument, which Stapleton 
considers the weightiest and most important of all. It is stated in 
the eleventh chapter of his ninth book, and is drawn from the rule 
of faith, thus: The rule of faith which is lodged with the church, 
and delivered by the church, is the means by which the masters 
and pastors of the churches distinguished true scriptures from false. 
Therefore the church only should determine of the canonical books 
of scripture. I answer: if by the rule of faith we understand the 
articles of faith, then this reason of our adversary is not sufficient 
for the confirmation of his cause, nor is there any consequence in 

[3 kai eópeiv rà pev mrelova ro) OpÜo0 Aóyov Tov Swrijpos, twa dé mpo- 


0er raAuéva.— bid. p. 179.] 


328 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cu. 


his argument. For this is no reason: Such a book teaches things 
in harmony with the articles of the faith; therefore it is canonical. 
For many books expound that sound doctrine which is in perfect 
harmony with the articles of the faith, and nevertheless should not 
be received into the canon. The reason is indeed good negatively 
the other way: such a book delivers something repugnant to the 
articles of the faith; therefore it is not canonical. But affirmatively, 
it does not hold. But what is that rule of faith? Undoubtedly 
the rule of faith is the scripture itself: if therefore, the canon of 
scripture be consigned by the rule of faith, then the scripture is 
confirmed by the scripture, which is the very thing we maintain. 
But he means far otherwise. The rule of faith, says he, is not 
the scripture, but a certain previous, presupposed, and pre-existing 
faith, which, being prior to the scripture, is neither included in, nor 
convertible with, the scripture. This is certainly an impious and 
blasphemous fiction of Stapleton’s. For it is to be held undoubt- 
ingly, as we shall hereafter prove most largely, that the revealed 
and written word of God is the sole rule of faith, which is a thing 
prior to the faith of the church. For all “faith is by hearing, and 
hearing by the word of God,” Rom, x. 17: that is, our hearing 
hath regard to the word of God, as its object, and objects are 
prior to the senses perceiving them ; therefore the word is prior to 
faith. If he feign another rule of faith besides the written word of 
God, we reject, repudiate, and refuse to acknowledge any such, and 
reduce the whole rule of the catholic faith to the scripture alone. 

But I ask whether it is by this rule, or without this rule, that 
the church distinguishes true scriptures from false? Stapleton 
answers thus, at the close of the chapter: **The rule of faith,” says 
he, * delivered and accepted by the church, is the sole and most 
certain mean, whereby the pastors and governors of the church 
distinguish the true scriptures from the false: therefore, without 
this rule the genuine scriptures cannot be distinguished from the 
spurious.” I derive then from this statement four observations. 

Firstly, if true scriptures are discerned from false by the rule 
of faith, then it no less appertains to the whole body of the church 
to consign the canon of scripture, than to the pastors and governors 
of the church themselves. For all the faithful have this rule, not 
alone the pastors, governors and prelates; because the faith is 
common to both laymen and ministers. Now this makes against 
Stapleton, who does not attribute this power to the whole body of 
the church, but only to the prelates and pastors. 


x QUESTION THE THIRD. 329 


Secondly, if it be not by its own authority, but by the rule 
of faith, that the church distinguishes the true scriptures from the 
false, then all Stapleton's former arguments, drawn from the au- 
thority of the church, are of no avail; because the church does not 
rest simply on its own authority, but on some certain rule of faith 
in adjudicating and discriminating scripture. Thus the previous 
arguments, which are founded on the bare authority of the church, 
are altogether avoided, and the whole judgment of the church is 
tied to the rule of faith. 

Thirdly, how can these things agree, or in any wise stand 
together? He says that the pastors and masters of the church do, 
by means of the rule of faith delivered and received by the church, 
distinguish the true scriptures from the false; and under this name 
of the church he understands the pastors only, and prelates, and 
masters (as he calls them) of the churches. Therefore, he says 
nothing else but this, that the pastors do, by means of the rule of 
faith delivered and received by the pastors, discriminate the scrip- 
tures. But, in the first place, the pastors do not always think 
alike concerning the canonical scriptures, (if by the pastors he 
understand the bishops and doctors,) as may be proved from anti- 
quity. If therefore this rule be delivered by the pastors, it will 
be changeable and uncertain. Yea, even the pastors of the present 
day do not think alike of the canonical books. It is necessary, 
therefore, that at length they should betake themselves to the 
pope alone, as to (in their own phrase) the chief pastor, make him 
the church, and make all depend upon his caprice. Again, how 
absurd is it, that pastors should receive from pastors, that is, from 
themselves, the most certain mean of discerning the scriptures ! 
These things are of such a nature, that certainly they can in no 
way be reconciled. 

Fourthly, I ask what this rule is? and where we may find it 
containing a certain and definite enumeration of books? is it 
written or unwritten? If he say, written; I demand where it is 
written. If it be not written, we may easily despise it, as a thing 
of no credit or importance: for we make no account of their 
pretended unwritten traditions. But he says that it is written 
in the hearts of the faithful, and to this purpose he adduces the 
testimonies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and others, where the Lord says 
that he wil write his laws in the hearts of the faithful. We 
for our parts approve all this. But, in the meanwhile, he does 
not perceive that he is overturning all that he had previously 


330 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


established. For he said above, that the testimony of the Holy 
Spirit is therefore to be rejected because not an external, but an 
internal, evidence. But if this rule of faith be written in the 
hearts of the faithful, how, I beseech you, will it be more certain 
than the testimony of the Spirit? And wherein does it differ 
from the testimony of the Spirit? since faith is the work and 
effect of the Holy Ghost in the hearts of the faithful, received from 
the word of God, whereby all saving truth is proved and confirmed 
to us. Therefore, Stapleton hath at length of his own accord 
passed over entirely to our opinion. 

Stapleton next handles two subjects at the end of this book. 
The first is, that not only the ancient apostolieal church, but this 
present church also, may consign and constitute the canon of 
scripture. Wherein he hath for opponents Durandus and Driedo, 
two very learned papists, who contend that this power related 
only to the apostolical church; and that the office of the present 
church was only to receive the canon consigned by that other more 
ancient church. With these he enters upon a very severe en- 
counter and contention, of which I shall not be a sharer, but a 
spectator only. 

The second is, that this present church also might even now add 
other books to the canon, as the book of the Shepherd, and the 
Apostolieal Constitutions written by Clement, and other books also, 
which were formerly doubtful, but never condemned : which indeed, 
it is manifest, is said and maintained absurdly. But, it seems, they 
have gone to such a length of impudence, that nothing is so revolt- 
ing to be said, as to make them ashamed of affirming it. Certainly 
the book of the Shepherd is altogether unworthy of such great 
authority; and the Apostolical Constitutions of Clement have not 
even a grain of the apostolic spirit. The church, therefore, 
neither ean, nor should, receive these books into the canon. Sta- 
pleton, while he asserts the competency of the church to do this, 
is at variance both with very many papists (Thomas à Walden!, 
for example, and others) and even with himself; since he had 
already alleged a testimony from Augustine, whence it appeared . 
that the canon of scripture was consigned by the apostles, who 
excluded this book from the canon. But I would fain have him 
answer, whether the canon of scripture was settled heretofore, or 
not? He cannot deny that it was: for he has already confessed 
it out of Augustine; and there are some councils too, which the 

[! Doctrin. Fidei, T. r. L. 2. Art. 2. c. 23. N. 9.] 


x. | | QUESTION THE THIRD. 931 


papists object to us, in which they say that the canon of scripture 
was consigned. If, therefore, the canon of seripture was consigned 
formerly, certainly a canon settled by so great authority cannot 
be changed, or this or that book introduced into it. For how 
grossly absurd would it be, either that a book intrinsically canon- 
ical should be for so many ages not received into the canon; or 
that it should now, so late, in the very last age of the world, be so 
received! As to the Constitutions of Clement, they were even con- 
demned by the judgment of some councils, as is shewn above. 
They were deemed, therefore, wholly unworthy of having rank or 
place in the canonical scriptures: yea, they certainly can never be 
received into the canon by the church. For the church cannot 
make non-canonical books canonical, but only cause those books to 
be received as canonical, which are really such in themselves. 
Augustine, at least, was so far from thinking that this most vene- 
rable canon could be changed, or increased by any new accession 
of books, that in his 129th sermon upon the Times? he does not 
hesitate to denounce an anathema upon all who believe that any 
scriptures should be held in authority, or reverence any but those 
which the church had received. Therefore, if the church were to 
receive any new books into the canon, it would act against the 
faith itself, and deserve the severest censure, nay, execration. 
Now that it hath this power is boldly maintained by Stapleton: 
whence it is plain enough how great an injustice he does the 
church. But we have answered Stapleton’s arguments already at 
sufficient length. 

There remains now one other argument, which Stapleton in- 
deed hath not made use of: but I perceive that some other papists 
are exceedingly delighted with it. It is to this effect: The church 
is more ancient than the scripture ; therefore it ought to have more 
authority in respect of us than the scripture. So Eckius, in his En- 
chiridion: so Hosius, Lib. iii. de Auctoritate Scripture : so Linda- 
nus, in his Panoply, in many places: so Andradius in the third 
book of his Defence of the Council of Trent: so Schróck the Jesuit, 
in his 13th Thesis; and some others beside. I answer: In the first 
place, I confess that there was a time when the word of God was not 
written, and that the church existed then: but it does not, there- 
fore, follow that the church was more ancient than the word. For 
the doctrine was the same when not written, as it is now when it 
is written; and that was more ancient than all churches. For the 


[? Col. 876. Opp. T. x. Basil. 1569.] 


332 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ CH. 


word of God is the seed of the church. Now the seed is always 
more ancient than that progeny of which it is the seed. When I 
speak of the word of God, I mean no other than that which is now 
written: for the unwritten word was the same with that which is 
now written. Secondly, Neither is that assertion true, that all 
things that are junior are of less authority. For Christ was later 
in time than John. Shall then the authority of John be greater 
in respect of us than that of Christ? No one in his senses will 
affirm that. This argument therefore is but slight, and of no im- 
portance whatsoever, although it be handled very shewily by some 
authors. Some of the papists have laboured, as if they were on a 
question of chronology, to shew that the word was unwritten for 
more than two thousand years, and that the gospel was preached 
about thirty years before it was written. But there is no reason 
why we should give this argument a larger answer in this place. 





CHAPTER XI. 


OUR ARGUMENTS, WHEREBY WE PROVE THAT THE AUTHORITY OF 
THE SCRIPTURE, IN RESPECT OF US DOES NOT DEPEND UPON 
THE JUDGMENT AND AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 


HrirHERTO we have spoken of the arguments of the papists, 
and have given such answers as are sufficient to satisfy all im- 
partial persons. Now follow the arguments of our defence. 

Our first argument is to this effect: If the scripture had divine 
authority before any publie judgment of the church, then it hath 
of itself in respect of us canonical authority, and its authority 
does not depend upon the church. But the former is true; there- 
fore also the second. The major proposition is manifest. The 
minor is confirmed by four reasons. The first: The papists them- 
selves confess that the church does not make the scripture au- 
thentie, but only declares it. But if the scripture be first authentic 
of itself, then certainly it necessarily follows that it must be au- 
thentic also to us; for nothing can be called authentic, which 
seems authentie to no one. That is called authentie, which is 
sufficient to itself, which commends, sustains, proves itself, and hath 
credit and authority from itself; the contrary of which is aóéc- 


xi.T QUESTION THE THIRD. 333 


morov and d«upov, that, namely, which is uncertain and hath no 
authority of itself. Therefore, if the scriptures were authentic 
before the church declared them to be authentic, they were au- 
thentic also to us; otherwise they were absolutely incapable of 
being declared authentic. 

The second. The judgment of fathers, councils, and the church, 
is but recent, if we respect the antiquity of scripture. If therefore 
the authority of scripture depend upon the public judgment of the 
church, then doubtless for many centuries there was no certain 
canon of scripture. Fathers, indeed, and councils enunciate the 
canonical books; but those books both were, and were esteemed, 
previously authentic, and canonical, and sacred, as is plain from 
those fathers and councils themselves. Let them produce any 
public judgment of the church, and it will readily appear that the 
scriptures were deemed canonical before that judgment. 

The third. J demand what this judgment of the church was, 
or where it can be found? If they answer, In the books of the 
fathers, and the decrees of the councils: I desire to know, how we 
are more sure of the authority of the fathers and councils than of 
that of scripture? For example, whence are we more certainly 
assured that these are the books of Augustine, those of Jerome, 
than we are that this is the Gospel of Matthew, and that of Mark ? 
If they urge, that the living voice of the church is necessary, then 
they must needs abandon the support which they are wont to build 
upon in the authority of the ancient church. If they say, that this 
is certain from the voice of the present church; I ask again, whence 
it appears that this is the voice of the true church? They 
must prove this from the scriptures; for the true church can no 
otherwise be proved but from the authority of scripture. Now 
from thence it will follow that the authority of scripture is more 
certain than that of the church. 

The fourth. If the church be gathered together to consign the 
canon of scripture, it must needs be so by some authority. I 
demand, therefore, by what authority it is so collected? If they 
answer, by some internal impulse or revelation of the Spirit, we 
entirely reject such revelations which are besides the word, as 
fanatical and anabaptistical and utterly heretical. If they say that 
it is collected by the authority of scripture, then they concede that 
which we demand: for it will thence follow, that the scripture 
had a canonical authority before it was confirmed by the judgment 
of the church. If they allow only this part of scripture which 


334 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


gives such an authority to the church to have been previously 
canonical, but deny the rest to have been so, they do this without 
any certain reason. Suffice it to say so much of our first argument. 

Our second argument is to this purpose.  7'haf is the true 
and proper cause of that authentic authority which the scripture 
holds with us, which produces this effect perpetually and neces- 
sarily; that is, which always causes the scripture to have an 
authentic authority with us. But the necessary and perpetual 
cause of this is only the testimony of the Holy Spirit, not the 
publie judgment of the church. Therefore, the testimony of the 
Holy Spirit, and not the publie judgment of the church, is the true 
and proper cause of that authentic authority which the scripture 
hath with us. Concerning the major there can be no doubt; and 
the minor is easily established. For if the judgment of the church 
always rendered the authority of scripture canonical in respect of 
us ; then all who heard this from the church would presently believe 
it, and immediately all, to whom this judgment of the church came, 
would receive that canon which the church had established. But 
the church hath long since consigned the canon of scripture, and 
nevertheless the Jews, Turks, Saracens, and even many Christians 
do not heartily assent to it: it is, therefore, evident that the 
judgment of the church is not the certain, necessary, solid and 
perpetual argument of that authority which the scripture obtains. 
But the Holy Spirit always produces this effect: his testimony, 
therefore, is the true and proper cause of the authority of scripture 
in respect of us. 

Our third argument stands thus : If the authority of the church 
in respect of us depend upon the authority of scripture, then the 
authority of scripture in respect of us does not, on the contrary, 
depend upon the authority of the church.  Dut the first is true, 
and therefore also the second. The consequence of the major is 
sufficiently strong of itself; and the assumption may be easily 
established. For I demand, whence it is that we learn that the 
church cannot err in consigning the canon of scripture? They 
answer, that it is governed by the Holy Spirit (for so the council 
of Trent assumes of itself), and therefore cannot err in its judgments 
and decrees. I confess indeed that, if it be always governed by 
the Holy Spirit so as that, in every question, the Spirit affords it 
the light of truth, it cannot err. But whence do we know that it 
is always so governed? They answer that Christ hath promised 
this. Be it so. But where, I pray, hath he promised it? Readily, 


x1. | QUESTION THE THIRD. 335 


and without delay, they produce many sentences of scripture which 
they are always wont to have in their mouths, such as these: “I 
will be with you always, even to the end of the world." Matth. 
xxviii. 20. “Where two or three are gathered together in my 
name, there I will be in the midst of you." Matth. xvii. 20. “I 
will send to you the Comforter from the Father." John xv. 26. 
* Who, when he is come, will lead you into all truth.” John xvi. 13. 
I recognise here the most lucid and certain testimonies of scripture. 
But now from hence it follows not that the authority of scripture 
depends upon the church; but, contrariwise, that the authority of 
the church depends on scripture. Surely it is a notable circle in 
which this argument revolves! They say that they give authority 
to the scripture and canonical books in respect of us; and yet they 
confess that all their authority is derived from scripture. For if 
they rely upon the testimonies and sentences of these books, when 
they require us to believe in them; then it is plain that these books, 
which lend them credit, had greater authority in themselves, and 
were of themselves authentic. 

Our fourth argument stands thus: If the scripture have so 
great force and virtue in itself, as to draw up our souls to itself, 
to infuse into us an intimate persuasion of its truth, and of itself to 
commend itself to our belief; then it 1s certain that it is to us of 
itself avrov ov, canonical and authentic. Now the first is true; 
therefore also the second. There is no controversy about the major. 
The minor may be confirmed by testimonies of scripture. In Luke 
vill. 11 the word of God is compared to seed, and 1 Pet. i. 13 is 
called ** immortal seed.” Now then as seed displays itself, and 
issues forth, and bears fruit in its season, so the word of God re- 
sembles the nature of seed; it springs up, and breaks forth, and 
manifests its energy. Besides, 1 Cor. i. 4, Paul says: “My 
speech and my preaching was not in persuasive words of man's 
wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and in power," aAX' év 
drovetéer IHvevuacvos kai dvvduews. In Luke xxiv. 32, those two 
disciples, to whom Christ appeared on their way to Emmaus, con- 
versed thus with one another, after Christ had vanished from their 
sight: * Did not our heart burn within us, katouévg nv €v nyiv, 
whilst he spake unto us by the way, and whilst he opened unto us 
the scriptures?” Heb. iv. 12, “The word of God,” says the 
apostle, “is quick and powerful, Cov kai évepryys, and quicker than 
any two-edged sword, and pierceth even to the dividing asunder 
of the soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a 


336 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” 1 Cor. xiv. 
24, 25, * If all prophesy,” says Paul, “and there come in one that 
believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged 
of all; and so are the secrets of his heart made manifest, and so, 
falling down on his face, he will worship God, and report that God 
is in you of a truth.” From all these places we understand, that 
there is a certain divine force, virtue, and efficacy in scripture, which 
reaches not the ears only, but even the soul itself, and penetrates 
to the inmost recesses of the heart, and proves the most certain 
divinity of scripture. The scripture, therefore, which hath such 
a force in itself, and which so openly shews, proves, establishes 
itself, and persuades us of its own truth, is by all means of itself 
canonical and authentic. 

Our fifth argument is taken from the words of Christ, John v. 
34, where Christ says: “I receive not witness of men," éyw ov 
Tapa avOpwrov paptupiav Xau[Bave. Hence we draw an argument 
to this effect: Christ is known of himself; he depends not on the 
testimony or authority of any man. Therefore, neither does the 
scripture. For the authority of scripture is not less than that of 
Christ, whose word it is. But here they will object thus: Did not 
Christ use the honourable testimony of John? Why then may not 
also the scripture be commended by the testimony of the church ? 
I answer, that John did indeed give testimony to Christ, but not 
any authority, not even in respect of us. The same may be said 
of the church; that is, that it gives testimony to the scriptures ; 
that it commends and declares them authentic, and yet imparts to 
them no authority, not even in respect of us. Christ’s saying, “I 
receive not witness of man,” is the same thing as if he had said: I 
need not that any should give me authority by his testimony; I 
am sufficiently fortified on all sides by mine own authority ; I will 
abundantly gain authority for myself by mine own testimony. As, 
therefore, Christ could of himself demonstrate that he was the 
Messiah, so the word.of Christ can of itself produce the belief that 
it is the word of God. Its being commended by the church is not 
for the purpose of receiving greater authority, but in order that its 
authority may be the more recognised by men. Canus, Lib. rm. 
cap. 8, seeks to break the force of this testimony, thus: The sense 
is, says he, I do not receive witness of man; that is, I do not need 
the witness of any man, but I allege the witness of John for your 
sakes. Be it so. Then also it will follow, that neither does 
scripture need the witness of the church. 


xi.] | QUESTION THE THIRD. 337 


Our sixth argument is taken from the same chapter, verse 38, 
where Christ says: *I have greater testimony than that of John ;" 
—éyw uaprvpiav uet(o Iwavvov: and then he recites three such 
testimonies, namely, his works, the testimony of his Father, and the 
scriptures. Hence I conclude thus: If the testimony of scripture 
concerning Christ be more certain than the judgment and witness 
of John, then is it also much more certain and valid than the 
judgment and witness of the church. For the papists dare not say, 
that the judgment of the church concerning scripture is more 
certain than was that testimony of John concerning Christ. But 
the former is true, and therefore also the latter. Nay, the written 
word of God is even more certain and firm than a divine revela- 
tion and a celestial voice: for so we read, 2 Pet. 1. 19. Does the 
church dare to attribute more to her judgment than to a divine 
voice and heavenly revelation? Peter was with Christ upon the 
mount, and there heard the voice of God the Father; and yet he 
says, * We have a more sure word of prophecy," e(dairepov Tov 
mpognytixov Xóryov. If then the scripture be more certain than 
divine revelations from heaven, much more must it needs be more 
certain than the judgment and testimony of the church. Whence 
it is plain that no authority can be conceived greater or more 
certain than that of scripture. Beza indeed hath translated (3e- 
Baorepov most firm; but it comes to the same thing: for if 
the word of prophecy be most firm, then certainly it is more firm 
than any revelation, and contains the highest degree of strength 
in itself. 

Our seventh argument is taken from 1 Thess. i. 13, where 
Paul addresses the Thessalonians thus: “ We give thanks to God 
always, because that, when ye received the word of God which ye 
heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but (as it is in 
truth) the word of God, éóéfac0e ov Xoyov avOpwrwy, andra 
Aoryov Oeo), which also worketh effectually in you that believe.” 
From this place I argue thus: If the Thessalonians, when they 
only heard Paul, received the doctrine of scripture as divine, and 
so embraced it, then, without the judgment of the church, the 
scripture ought to have a divine authority with us. But the 
former is true; for the Thessalonians had then heard of no pro- 
phecy or testimony of any church, but had only received the 
word from the lips of Paul: therefore also the latter. Ambrose 
writes thus upon that place: ** They received the word with such 
devotion as to prove that they understood it to be the word of 


[ WHITAKER. | 22 


338 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


God! But whence could they understand it to be such? Certainly 
from the doctrine itself, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit; not 
from the authority of any church, or of the apostle himself. For 
what church could persuade the Thessalonians by the weight of 
its testimony to receive Paul, or assent to his discourses as divine ? 
The apostle himself was unknown to them, and had nowhere any 
authority but on account of that doctrine, the minister and herald of 
which he was. Therefore, the doctrine itself gained for him all his 
authority and credit. We read in like manner, Gal. iv. 14, “ Ye 
received me,” says Paul, “as an angel of God, yea, as Christ 
Jesus.” Whose commendation was it, I beseech you, which pro- 
cured for Paul this authority and dignity with the Galatians? No 
man’s. Therefore that doctrine which the apostle brought with 
him excited in the strongest manner the minds of the Galatians to 
welcome and respect Paul, and sufficiently of itself commended itself 
and its minister. So Acts xvii. 11, the Berceans, when they heard 
Paul, examined his teaching not by the judgment of any church, but 
by the standard of the scripture itself. It appears, therefore, that 
scripture of itself, without the testimony and authority of the 
church, hath a divine, canonical and authentic authority even in 
respect of us. 

Our eighth argument stands thus: The authority of the un- 
written word did not depend upon the authority of the church. 
Therefore neither does the authority of the written word now 
depend upon the church. The argument is conclusive, because 
the reason is the same in both cases. The major is proved be- 
cause, when as yet the word was not published in the scriptures . 
or written documents, God used to speak immediately to the pa- 
triarchs, and this word was not commended or received by any 
authority of the church, but by that of God alone: therefore also 
the written word of God should be received in like manner: un- 
less it be said that it is of less authority since it hath been con- 
signed to books than it was before; which is the height of absurdity. 
Paul, Rom. ii. 15, affirms of the law, that it is written in our 
hearts. I believe the law, therefore, not on account of the testi- 
mony or judgment of the church, but because we retain the light 
of the law impressed and inscribed upon our hearts. Now then, 
if the law, which is one portion of the word of God, be acknow- 
ledged of itself and by its own light, which is impressed upon our 


[! Tanta devotione receperunt verbum, ut probarent se intellexisse esse 
Dei verbum.—Opp. T. rr. App. p. 279. Paris. 1670.] 


? 


XI. | : QUESTION THE THIRD. 399 


souls, and easily proves itself to all, and shews that this is the will 
of God ; much more is the gospel sealed in our hearts by the Holy 
Spirit, and received on account of the Holy Spirit's authority. 
For, if we understand that the law is the will of God, not per- 
suaded by the.authority of the church, but by the internal light 
of the law ; how much more need is there that we be illuminated 
by the light of the Holy Spirit, before we believe the gospel; 
since the law is natural, but the gospel transcends all nature, and 
therefore needs some greater kind of confirmation ! 

Our ninth argument is taken from 1 John v. 6, where these 
words are found: to mvevua 6oTi TO papTvpovv, ÓTL wWvevua 
ecTw 5 adnOaa. “It is the Spirit that beareth witness that 
the Spirit is truth;" that is, by a metonymy, that the doctrine 
delivered by the Spirit is true. The old translator somewhat 
otherwise: Spiritus est qui testatur, quoniam Christus est veritas. 
But it comes to precisely the same thing. For the sense is plain, 
that it is the Spirit which testifies of the Spirit, that is, of the hea- 
venly doctrine whereof he is the master, and of Christ: where the 
testimony of the Spirit in confirming doctrine is established. 

Our tenth argument is taken from the same chapter, verse 9, 
where these words are contained: “If we receive the witness of 
men, the witness of God is greater ;” 5 naprvpta ToU Ocov uei(ov: 
whence we understand that no testimony can be either greater 
or more certain than the divine. But the testimony of the church 
is human: for if they would have the testimony of the church to 
be divine, they must mean thereby the testimony of the Spirit, and 
so they will assert the same thing as we. Thomas Aquinas by “the 
testimony of men" in this place understands the testimony of the 
prophets; but the testimony of the church cannot be more certain 
than the testimony of the prophets. If, therefore, there be, as Thomas 
implies, something greater than the testimony of the prophets, then 
it will follow that the testimony of the church is not the greatest 
whereby we are convinced of the truth of faith and doctrine. 

Our eleventh argument is taken from the last words of the 
fifth chapter of the gospel according to St John, which are these: 
“If ye believe not Moses’ writings, how shall ye believe my 
words?" ei Tots €ketvov Ypaupact ui] Tio Tevere, TOS TOIS Euots 
pyuact mio Tevaere ; They are Christ's words to the Jews: whence 
I conclude thus: They who do not believe the scriptures them- 
selves, will not even believe the testimony of Christ; much less 
will be capable of being induced to repose faith in the voice and 

22—2 


* 
340 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


words of the church. Jansenius, himself a papist, observes that 
it is an argument a fortiori, because “as that is firmer which 
is consigned to writing, so it is more censurable and a greater 
fault, not to believe writings than not to believe words!" And 
Theophylact interprets this place in the following manner: “If 
ye believe not words written, how shall ye believe my words that 
are not written?” Ov aicrevete Tors rYypapmact, Kal 7S mt- 
OTEVTETE TOS Epors arypapos pymacw; It is evident, therefore, 
that those who are not moved by the authority of the scriptures 
themselves, to embrace them with a pure faith, can be moved 
or induced by no other argument or authority to believe. 

Stapleton does not touch upon the foregoing arguments, where- 
by it is plain that our cause is abundantly demonstrated: but now 
follow some which he endeavours to obviate. For, Lib. rx. c. 2, 
he proposes six arguments of the Protestants, as he calls them, 
which he answers severally, c. 3. The first four arguments are 
taken from Calvin, Jnstit. Lib. 1. e. 7,? the remaining two from 
others, which we shall join to the foregoing along with the de- 
fence of them. 

Calvin's first argument, therefore, shall be our twelfth, which 
is this: If the canon of scripture depend upon the determination 
of the church, then the authority, verity, and credibility of all 
the promises of salvation and eternal life contained in scripture 
depend upon a human judgment; because we believe those pro- 
mises on account of the canonical authority of the scriptures in 
which they are contained. But it is absurd, that the promises 
of God should depend upon men, that the eternal truth of God 
should rest upon the will of man, because then our consciences 
can have no confidence, no security. Therefore the canon of scrip- 
ture does not depend upon the determination of the church. 

Stapleton answers, that the judgment of the church in this matter 
is not merely human, but divine and infallible, so as that the faithful 
soul may most safely acquiesce in it, and therefore that Calvin's 
argument is inconsequential. But what is the meaning of this as- 
sertion, that the church’s judgment is not merely human? Be it 
so. But is it merely divine? For surely it is requisite that the - 
truth of the promises of eternal life should be propped and sup- 
ported by a testimony purely divine. This Stapleton does not 
openly affirm, but afterwards seems to wish it to be understood, 


[1 Comment. in Concord. Evang. p. 241. Lugd. 1606.] 
[2 Tom. 1. pp. 57—62. ed. Tholuck. Berol. 1834. ] 


xt] QUESTION THE THIRD. 941 
when he says that it is divine and infallible, and that faithful souls 
may safely acquiesce in it. But here he does not answer candidly ; 
for the question is, whether those things which are promised in the 
scriptures are believed by us to be true solely on account of the 
church's authority, or on account of some more certain judgment ? 
Stapleton says that the judgment of the church is divine, because 
God speaks through the church, and that so we may acquiesce in 
the voice and sentence of the church. Be it so; let the judgment 
of the church be divine. Well, is not the judgment of scripture 
divine also in Stapleton's opinion? Why then may we not ac- 
quiesce in the judgment of scripture as well as in that of the 
church? But indeed, when he answers thus, he accomplishes no- 
thing. For the question is not, whether the judgment of the 
church be divine in itself, but whence it is that we are assured 
of its being so;—-unless perhaps he has forgotten his own Thesis. 
This latter question he gives us no information upon. He says 
only, that God speaks through the church, which we, for our 
parts, confess; but we ask further, whether those things which 
God speaks and teaches through the church are believed by us to be 
true solely on account of the church's authority, and whether it be 
not proved in some other way than by the church's own testimony 
that God speaks through the church ? By not telling us this, nor 
shewing how we know the church's judgment to be divine, he is 
guilty of manifest tergiversation, and fails to prove that which was 
the real question. or there is a wide difference between these 
two propositions; God speaks through the church, and, We can- 
not be otherwise certain of the scriptures and doctrine of God, 
but because the church attests them. 

Cochleus indeed, of whom we have heard before, asserts that 
we cannot be certainly persuaded of the doctrine of scripture other- 
wise than by the testimony of the church. For that dishonest writer 
enumerates many strange and incredible things in scripture, which 
he falsely pretends to be believed solely on account of the church's 
authority. Stapleton thinks in the same way, and speaks in the same 
way in this chapter : for he says, that the church does not make the 
contents of scripture true, yet does cause them to be believed by 
us as true. From which statement it is apparent that Calvin's 
objection is just, that in this way our whole faith depends upon 
the authority and human judgment of the church. But the scrip- 
ture teaches us far otherwise and better. For thus we read, 
1 John, v. 10, “He who believeth not God, makes him a liar." 


342 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


He therefore who no otherwise believes God promising, but on ac- 
count of the authority of some one else, certainly believes that 
other person more than God, and so makes God a liar. Besides, 
in this way, the church would be mistress of our faith, which is 
repugnant to that saying of Paul, 2 Cor. i. = * We have not do- 
minion over," ov KVpLEVOJAEV, * your faith ;’ TU Tigre ECTHKATE, 
* by faith ye stand.” We stand, indeed, by faith, and that is the 
gift of the Holy Ghost, not of the church. We see, therefore, that 
it is not on the church’s, but on the Holy Spirit’s authority, that 
we persevere stable and constant in the faith, and fall not from 
divine grace. Besides, by this way of reasoning, it would follow 
that the ultimate issue and resolution (as they call it) of our faith 
would be into the voice and judgment of the church. This indeed 
some of the schoolmen, and those of great name too, have long 
since not been ashamed to affirm in express words; but the later 
papists deny it, and Stapleton himself elsewhere disputes against 
it. But how can it be denied, if, as Stapleton will have it, we be- 
lieve whatever we believe on the church’s authority ? For if the 
judgment of the church causes the books of scripture to be canoni- 
cal to us, then it certainly is the cause why those things which are 
contained in scripture are judged and believed true by us. And 
if this be so, is not our faith ultimately resolved into the voice of 
the church? On account of the church we believe the scriptures 
and every thing contained in scripture; for this is the meaning of 
Stapleton’s assertion that the church causes those things which are 
found in scripture to be believed and held for true. Thus he does 
not perceive that he overturns his own opinion. Besides, he says 
that the judgment of the church is divine and infallible, and that 
the minds of the faithful may safely acquiesce in it. Why, there- 
fore, should he not also concede, that the ultimate resolution of faith 
is placed in the judgment of the church ? 

From what hath been said it appears that all the promises of 
scripture are, in Stapleton’s opinion, confirmed by no other au- 
thority than that of the church; whence what Calvin says follows, 
that our consciences are despoiled of all security, and that nothing . 
certain is left to us in religion. But why, asks Stapleton, when the 
testimony of the church is divine? I answer: We confess, indeed, 
that the testimony of the church is divine in a certain sense; not 
absolutely, but in some respects, that is, so far as it agrees with 
scripture, with the Holy Spirit, with the will of God. But then 
we say that that judgment is not to be received on account of the 


x1.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 943 


church, but on account of the will and authority of God with which 
it agrees. Alphonsus de Castro, Lib. 1. e. 8!, answers this argument 
of Calvin's in another way ; namely, that we owe it to the church 
indeed that we know what is divine scripture, but that afterwards, 
when we have been assured that scripture is divine, then we have 
from itself the obligation to believe it thoroughly in all respects. 
He thought that which Stapleton hath ventured to defend grossly 
absurd. But there is this also in de Castro's answer, that, if the 
church make scripture authentic to us, then it also makes authentic 
to us, and true, all the things which are written and taught in 
scripture. Whereupon Stapleton did not choose to make use of 
this answer ; and preferred openly enunciating its consequence, that 
all things are believed by us on account of the church. What 
Stapleton subjoins out of Ephes. iv. 11, that Christ left to his 
church apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, doctors, that the 
people might be kept in the faith, and not carried about with every 
wind of doctrine, is of absolutely no weight. For although the 
people be retained by pastors and doctors in faith and obedience, it 
does not therefore follow that it is solely by their authority that 
the permanence of the people in their duty is effected. For the 
christian people acknowledges and reverences a greater authority 
than that of the pastors, namely, that of God himself; which unless 
it were of more avail than that of the pastors, the people could 
never be so retained. So, in precisely the same way, the people 
are kept in peace by the magistrates and ministers of the king; 
but yet there is a greater authority than that of these magistrates, 
on account of which they are kept in peace, — namely, that of the 
prince himself, whose authority and dominion extends far and wide 
through all the parts of his realm. 

Our thirteenth argument, which was Calvin's second, is this : In 
this way the truth of divine scripture would be exposed to the 
mockeries of impious men, and would in great measure be brought 
into even general suspicion, as if it had no other authority than 
such as depended precariously upon the good will of men, if it be 
said to be received only on account of the judgment of the church. 
Therefore, &c. And this is most true; for who fails to perceive 
that, in this way, scripture is exposed to infinite reproaches and 
calumnies from men? Here Stapleton, overcome by the force of 
truth, is compelled even against his will to speak the truth. He 
says that it is not by the good will of men, but the testimony of 


1 [Opp. Paris. 1571. p. 46.] 


344 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


God speaking through men, that both the scriptures and all the 
rest of our faith have their authority. This we willingly embrace. 
For we confess that the scripture hath its authority from the testi- 
mony of God; and we confess also what he adds, that God speaks 
through men: for God uses no other ministry than that of men, 
when he now addresses us in this world. But of what sort is this 
testimony of God speaking through men? Let them tell us, and 
they will find that the testimony of God speaking through the 
church is one thing, and the church itself another. And if they 
shall say that we believe the church on account of the testimony of 
God, what else do they say but what we say also? But neverthe- 
less we say further, that we ought to believe those things which 
God speaks through the church, on account of the authority of 
God himself who speaks, not on account of the authority of the 
church through which he speaks. Stapleton, under the pressure of 
this argument, betakes himself for refuge to his old distinction. 
The scripture, says he, does not receive from the church any pre- 
carious authority, since it depends not upon the church in itself, but 
only in respect of us; when yet he had said only a little before, 
that we believe on the testimony of God speaking through the church. 
Doubtless that authority cannot be called precarious, which rests 
upon divine testimony. The man absolutely knows not whither to 
turn himself, and yet he calls Calvin a caviller. Then he tells us 
how scripture hath authority with us by means of the church ; 
because God speaking through the church commends it to us, and 
makes it conspicuous. If he distinguishes God speaking through 
the church from the church itself, we concede all this, and then 
conclude that scripture rests upon the authority of God. If he do 
not distinguish, then he makes God speaking through the church, 
and the church through which he speaks, the same thing ; that is, he 
confounds the principal efficient cause with the instrument. I de- 
mand of him, therefore, whether he distinguishes that testimony of 
God speaking through the church from the actual judgment and 
testimony of the church, and makes the former something different 
from the latter; or confounds the one with the other, and deter- 
mines them to be absolutely the same? If he distinguish, then he 
concedes what we wish, namely, that the authority of scripture in 
respect of us rests upon the testimony of God. But if he confound 
them, then he absurdly commingles things which ought to be kept 
separate. For he who speaks is one, and that through whom he 
speaks is another. If therefore God speaks through the church, 


xI. | | QUESTION THE THIRD. 345 


this is not properly the witness of the church, but rather of God. 
Now if it be the testimony of God himself, it follows that God, not 
the church, gives authority to the scripture even in respect of us. 
And now we have said enough upon this argument. 

Our fourteenth argument, which is Calvin’s third, runs thus: 
The testimony of the Holy Spirit is more excellent than all au- 
thority: therefore the same Spirit can best persuade us that it is 
God who spoke in the scriptures. We say that the scriptures are 
proved to us by the witness of the Holy Spirit: therefore, we 
apply the most certain testimony, even in the judgment of our 
adversaries themselves, who dare not deny this. For God is alone 
a fit witness of himself. Stapleton concedes that the testimony of 
the Holy Spirit is the best and most certain; but he concedes this 
only in words, and in reality breaks down the whole force of this 
testimony. For he subjoins that this testimony of the Spirit should 
be public and manifest, not private and secret, lest seducing spirits 
should introduce themselves under the title of the Spirit of God ; 
and this public testimony of the Spirit he would have to be the 
judgment of the church. Here meanwhile he is compelled to con- 
fess, that there is need of the witness of the Spirit, and that this 
witness of the Holy Spirit is the most certain testimony. Thus 
then he affirms a testimony of the Spirit, but of such a kind as 
does not really exist, namely, a public and manifest one; so as that 
the external judgment of the church shall be holden to be the public 
judgment of the Spirit, and whatever the church determines and 
deems, this shall be believed to proceed from the testimony of the 
Spirit. Christ instituted no such tribunal, as will be shewn here- 
after in its place. For I ask, whether it be public and manifest to 
all, or only toa few? Certainly, it is not manifest to all publicly ; 
for then all would acknowledge and submit to it. If they say, it 
is public to a few, I would fain know of them how it can be called 
public and manifest at all? But I demand besides, who these few 
are to whom it is public? They will say, to the pastors, or, under 
the pressure of argument, to the pope alone. But we seek for such 
a public judgment as is open to all the faithful; and Stapleton should 
either shew us such, or confess that he is playing with us in a 
serious matter. For our dispute is not about the question how the 
pope or the pastors only, but how all the faithful universally, may 
understand the scriptures to have divine authority. Wherefore 
they are at length reduced to confess that they rest upon a dif- 
ferent testimony from that of the church, and that a private one, 


346 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


since it lies hidden in a single person. But it is absurd to dream of 
any publie tribunal of the Holy Spirit; yea, the scriptures them- 
selves plainly teach the contrary, that the testimony of the Holy 
Spirit is only private, internal, and secret. In 2 Cor. i. 21, Paul 
says that God hath sealed us, and given to us the earnest of the 
Spirit: but where? Zn our hearts. In Rom. vii. 16, the Spirit of 
God is said to testify not openly, not externally, but internally, 
that is, in our spirit, that we are the sons of God. In 1 John v. 
10, he who believes upon the Son of God is said to have the testi- 
mony, not in any external tribunal, but ev éavrq, in himself. In 
Matth. xvi. 17, Christ says to Peter, * Flesh and blood have not 
revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” In 
which words he unquestionably implies that the persuasion was 
wrought, and the revelation made inwardly to Peter, by the Holy 
Spirit, which he had just before confessed concerning Christ. In 
1 John i. 20, John addresses all the faithful in this manner: ** Ye 
have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.” 
UMELS xpticu.a EXETE, kal otcaTe vavra. And at verse twenty-seven 
of the same chapter, * The anointing which ye have received re- 
maineth in you,” év vpiv weve. He does not mean any external 
and manifest unction, but an internal one, entering in our minds 
and establishing all truth to us internally. So Isaiah lix. 21: 
“My Spirit, which is within you," &c. And it is certainly re- 
pugnant to the nature of the Spirit, that this testimony should be 
external and publie. For such as the Spirit is himself, such should 
also be his testimony. But the Spirit himself is hidden and secret, 
and blows where he listeth, as Christ taught Nicodemus, John iii. 
8: therefore his testimony also is occult; yet occult in such a sense 
as to admit of its being clear and certain to those persons them- 
selves who are anointed with this unction. Indeed this is so mani- 
fest that the very papists themselves are compelled to acknowledge 
it. For so Hosius in his Confessio Petrocoviensis, cap. 16: * Now 
we willingly concede that the gospels are to be received as the 
word of God, who teaches and reveals truth to us internally, and 
that they are not to be believed but on account of the voice of God 
speaking to us within!" But certainly the testimony of the church 
cannot be called the testimony of the Spirit in a strict sense, but 
only by way of similitude, or in so far as it agrees and harmonises 

[! Nos vero libenter concedimus, accipienda esse evangelia ut verbum 


Dei intus docentis et revelantis, neque credendum illis esse nisi propter Dei 
vocem intus loquentis.—p. 21. Opp. Lugd. 1564.] 


x1. | QUESTION THE THIRD. 347 


with the testimony of the Spirit. For we do not deny that the public 
judgment of the church may agree with the secret testimony of the 
Holy Spirit; but we say that then it is received for the sake of 
the testimony of the Spirit, not for the sake of the church. 

But as to-what Stapleton subjoins, that the public judgment is 
necessary on account of false and seductive spirits; we answer, that 
this man would fain seem wiser than Christ. For Christ, when he 
had a full prospect and foresight of this evil, nevertheless left no 
remedy against these deceiving spirits except the scripture, in whose 
judgment whosoever refuses to acquiesce will certainly contemn 
equally the authority of the church. He slanderously pretends also 
that we make the judgment of the church merely human; which is 
not true. For although we say that the church is composed of 
men, yet when its testimony agrees with the judgment and testi- 
mony of the Holy Spirit, and is in harmony with the word of God, 
we then confess that it is divine. Nevertheless we do indeed in the 
meanwhile say, that it is then believed not on account of the church 
itself and its authority, but on account of that truth which it follows 
and pronounces, and on account of the authority of God, whom, in 
that judgment, the church merely serves as a ministering agent. 
But all are not churches of God, which assume and arrogate to 
themselves this privilege, but those only which determine what 
Christ determined, and teach the same as he taught. But our dis- 
pute here is not concerning the true church, what and of what sort 
it is: this is the sole question before us,—whence we are assured 
that the judgment of the church is true and divine? This is the 
very point at issue. Let them then produce some argument 
whereby this may be cleared up for us; otherwise they do nothing. 
But assuredly they can produce none; nor hath Stapleton himself 
produced any, but only taken things for granted. He only says 
that we are impudent, if we do not believe, and unworthy of being 
disputed with; or else proves the conclusion by itself after this 
fashion: It is true that the judgment of the church is divine, 
because the church itself says so; it is governed by the Holy 
Ghost, because it says that it is so governed. We may, however, 
much more justly reply, that they are impudent if they do not 
believe the scripture, and that the scripture is divine because it 
affirms itself to be so. Nor is there any reason why we should say 
more upon this argument. 

Now follows our fifteenth argument, the fourth of Calvin, which 
is this: The church is said (Ephes. ii. 20) to be built upon the 


348 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


foundation of the prophets and apostles, that is, upon the prophetie 
and apostolic doctrine: therefore the prophetic and apostolic doc- 
trine, that is, the whole scripture, and the approbation of the same, 
preceded the church, without which the church could never have 
existed. Stapleton answers, that Calvin misleads his reader by a 
double equivocation concealed in these two words, foundation and 
church. For he says, in the first place, that the foundation in 
this place does not signify the doctrine written by the prophets and 
apostles, but their preaching: next, he says, that by the church in 
this place are not understood the masters, prelates, and superiors, but 
the faithful themselves as they constitute the body of the church. 
As to the first equivocation, I return a fourfold answer. First, 
what if we concede, that in this place the foundation of the prophets 
and apostles is meant of the apostolic and prophetic preaching? This 
will avail nothing against us: for the preaching of the prophets and 
apostles was precisely the same as the scripture itself. This is mani- 
fest from Acts xxvi. 22, where Paul speaks thus: ** Having obtained 
help from God, I continue unto this day, witnessing these things to 
both small and great, saying none other things than those which 
the prophets and Moses did say should come;” ovdév extds Aéryov. 
Whatever, therefore, the apostles taught, they derived from the 
prophets and Moses, and beyond them they taught nothing. The 
same may also be confirmed from Acts xvii. 11, where the Berceans 
are said to have examined the preaching of the apostles by the 
scripture; which they certainly could not have done if they had 
preached anything beside or without the scripture. Secondly, I 
say that the foundation of the prophets and apostles in this place 
actually does denote the scripture: which I prove from the cir- 
cumstance that Paul here joins the prophets with the apostles. 
Now the prophets were not then preaching, but only their writings 
were extant. Stapleton foresaw this, and therefore determines 
that, in this place, it is not the prophets of the old Testament that 
are meant and designed, but those of the new, who lived and 
taught along with the apostles, such as those who are mentioned, 
Ephes. iv. 11, and 1 Cor. xi. 28. But under the name of pro- 
phetie doctrine always in the scriptures the whole doctrine of the 
old Testament is wont to be understood. So 2 Pet. i. 16, where the 
apostle says: *We have a more sure word of prophecy ;" éxopev 
BeBaorepov tov mpodnTwov doyor. So Heb. i. 1, where the 
apostle says that God had spoken formerly in divers ways to the 
fathers by the prophets. So Rom. i. 2, where Paul says, that 


XI. | QUESTION THE THIRD. 349 


God had before promised the Gospel did trav rpopytey avtou év 
rypapais ayias. So Luke i. 70, where Zacharias, the father of 
John the Baptist, says that God had * raised up a horn of salvation 
for us in the house of his servant David, as he had spoken da 
TTOMATOS THY ayiov TOv aw auos TpoPpyTwv avTov."  There- 
fore in this place also, under the name of prophets are understood 
the old, and not the new prophets. For if Paul had understood 
those prophets of the new Testament, why not equally mention the 
evangelists, pastors and doctors, who were also preaching the word, 
and united their labours with the apostles and prophets in this 
work ? Chrysostom opposes Stapleton, and teaches us that none 
other are here understood but the ancient prophets: for he says 
that the apostles were posterior in time to those prophets whom 
Paul names here, and yet are set in the first place: [pwrov 
riOnot Tos AToTTOAOYS ea xyaovs OvTas Tos xpovoisl. Thirdly, 
I say, that the preaching of the apostles and prophets, as it was 
their action, continued only a short time. But the apostle speaks 
of a perpetual foundation which should consist and endure to the 
end of the world, and upon which the church of all times should 
always rest. This is the doctrine which the apostles first delivered 
by word of mouth, and afterwards in books that were to remain for 
ever. How then can the church be now founded upon that preach- 
ing, which hath ceased and come to an end many ages ago? 
Fourthly, Ambrose says that by the foundation in d place is 
understood the old and new Testaments, and that other prophets 
are here designated than those of whom we read Ephes. iv. 11, 
and 1 Cor. xi. 28. The same is the opinion of Thomas Aquinas ; 
the same of Dionysius the Carthusian, and of some other papists : 
so that we may perceive that Stapleton is here at variance with 
his own men. We have discussed the first ambiguity ; it remains 
that we come now to the second. 

The second equivocation which Stapleton remarks in Calvin's 
argument is in the word Church. Stapleton wishes to understand 
in this place by the church, not the pastors, but the people. But it 
is plain that the apostle is here laying the foundation of the whole 
church, and therefore of the pastors also ; unless perhaps they are no 
members of the church. Indeed it would be absurd that he should 
except the masters and prelates of the church more than the rest of 
the faithful, as if they had another foundation to rest upon besides 
the prophetic and apostolic doctrine; whereas absolutely all the 

[1 In Ephes. Hom. vi. T. rr. p. 39. B.] 


350 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cx. 


faithful are settled upon this foundation, of which Christ is the 
corner-stone. Since this is so, it is idle in Stapleton to say, that 
the church, as it denotes the body of the faithful, is founded upon 
the doctrine of the apostles and prophets, but not as it denotes the 
prelates and governors. Hence it is manifest that Calvin's reason- 
ing stands firm ;—namely, scripture is the foundation of the church; 
therefore, scripture and its approbation is prior to the church, 

But Stapleton still defends himself with that worn-out distinction. 
He says that the scripture is posterior to the church in regard of its 
acceptation in respect of us: as if approbation and acceptation were 
not the same thing, or scripture were not then accepted when it 
was approved. The adversary, therefore, cannot elude Calvin’s 
argument by this distinction. What he subjoins, namely, that the 
pastors are known before the scriptures, is utterly false, and a bare- 
faced begging of the question. For we ought first to know how 
good pastors should feed their flocks, (a point of knowledge only 
attainable from scripture, which most clearly describes the pastoral 
office), before we can recognise the actual good pastors. So we 
know a governor, a general, a professor of any art, from the matters 
themselves which they handle, and which are the subject of their 
art, and in no other way: unless, indeed, he understand merely a 
confused sort of knowledge, such as that of which Aristotle speaks, 
Physic. 1. cap. 1. But that is rather a sort of mere uncertain con- 
jecture or guess, than any clear and certain knowledge. As to his 
remark that the church itself also, in the sense of the pastors and 
rulers, 18 sometimes compared to a foundation and a gate, as by 
Augustine in his exposition of Ps. Ixxxviii. we allow it and concede 
it readily: but the reason is because that by their constancy the 
weaker are sustained and strengthened; by their preaching the 
gates of heaven are, in a manner, opened, so as that, without the 
ministry of the word, no access to salvation could lie open to any 
one. In the meanwhile, however, what we have before laid down 
is true, that the pastors are founded upon the word, and it cannot 
be determined otherwise than out of the word itself, who are true, 
good, and faithful. Therefore it must ever be held as most true, 
that the approbation of scripture precedes this discrimination of the 
pastors. For if we approve them for pastors, then before that, and 
much rather, must we approve the scriptures, which have made 
them pastors, and taught us not only what their office is, but also 
our own; and without which neither would they know how to feed the 
flock, nor could we esteem them as our pastors. In like manner, 





XI. | | "^. QUESTION THE THIRD. 351 


since the church depends upon the scriptures, the knowledge of the 
scriptures must needs precede the knowledge of the church. 

Our sixteenth argument is this: Scripture in the doctrine of 
religion hath the rank and place of a principle; all its declarations 
are, as it were, axioms and most certain principles, which neither 
can, nor ought to be proved by other things, but all other things 
to be proved and confirmed by them. If this hold in human 
sciences, whereof men are the authors, much more does it hold 
in scripture, whose author is the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth, 
Whoever is the author of this argument, it is most true. It seems 
to be Musculus’s. Stapleton answers by a distinction (for he is 
very copious in distinctions, which he generally abuses greatly,) in 
this manner: The principles of sciences, says he, are in themselves 
indemonstrable with respect to the nature of things; but in respect 
of us they may be demonstrated, on account of our great dulness, 
by a demonstration shewing simply that they exist. Such is the 
case of scripture. I answer: We confess that the scriptures may 
be demonstrated by an argument a posteriori; and that this argu- 
ment is especially useful to us on account of the slenderness of our 
intellect; and so that we are much aided in this matter by the 
voice and testimony of the church. But nevertheless we deny that 
the scripture needs this testimony of the church, or that it is on no 
other grounds authentic to us. We receive indeed the axioms of 
the sciences, when they are first delivered, and believe them to be 
true, induced by the words and authority of the professors of those 
sciences: but when we understand the reason of them, then we 
believe rather on account of the plain and necessary truth of the 
axioms themselves, which we perceive; for they have an infallible 
reason in themselves which commends them to our belief. The 
existence of the principles of the sciences may be explained to us; 
but are they understood to be true no otherwise than because the 
professors have so delivered them? Yea, the axioms themselves 
mutually demonstrate each other. In like manner, the scriptures 
may be illustrated and commended by the voice of the church, 
although they are in themselves most firm and certain principles, 
which are both proved by the authority of God himself, and fortify 
each other by their mutual testimony. Stapleton subjoins that the 
scripture is in such a sense a principle in religion as yet to allow 
that the church’s voice is prior to it. Which is utterly false, since 
all the voice of the church arises from the scripture. Besides, that 
which is taught is always prior to that which teaches. Now the 


352 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


scripture is taught, and the church teaches: therefore the scripture 
is prior to the church. 

But Stapleton proceeds, and proves that the church is prior 
to the scripture, and even of greater authority ; because the scrip- 
ture (says he) is one of those things which are believed; but 
the church is the rule of all those things which are believed. 
Where we may observe a two-fold self-contradiction. The first 
is, that whereas, in the chapter immediately preceding, he had 
denied that the scripture was believed, and said that though we 
professed in the Creed a belief in the church, we did not in the scrip- 
ture; now, on the contrary, he says that the scripture is one of 
the things believed, and so appertains to the Creed. Thus does he 
contradict himself, nor attend at all to what he says. The second 
is, that he says that the scripture is one of the things to be believed, 
and, therefore, cannot be the rule of those things which are be- 
lieved; while yet he determines the church to be that rule, although 
it be itself one of the things which are believed. For do we not 
plainly in the Creed profess that we believe in the catholic church ? 
If, therefore, scripture be not the rule of faith, because it is an 
article of faith, why does not the same argument hold also against 
the church? But is the voice of the church indeed the rule of 
faith? Yea, rather, on the contrary, scripture is the rule of the 
church. Does scripture follow the voice of the church, or the con- 
trary ? These men themselves say that the scripture is not squared 
to the voice of the church, but the testimony of the church to 
scripture; so as that, since it is canonical scripture, therefore the 
church can do no otherwise than declare it to be scripture. Thus 
the church is not the rule, but a thing directed by the rule. The 
scripture itself is the rule of faith, as we shall hereafter shew 
more clearly: for the voice of the church ought to be governed by 
scripture, and the church is the effect of faith, and therefore cannot 
be the rule of faith. For the church is the multitude of the faith- 
ful; and therefore ought to be governed by faith, to follow faith, 
to depend upon the rule of faith, and adjust all things by it. But 
the voice of the church is an act of the church, and posterior to the 
church. The voice of the church is the voice of men: but the rule 
of faith is the voice of God. Thus are they not ashamed of any 
absurdity or blasphemy: to such a pitch of desperation are they 
come. But we have spent words enough upon this argument. 

Now follows our seventeenth argument, which stands thus: The 
church is subject to the scripture; therefore it ought not to judge 


x1. | | QUESTION THE THIRD. 353 


of scripture. The argument is perfectly conclusive, if we under- 
stand an authoritative judgment, as the lawyers express it, which is 
what the papists would have. The antecedent is proved by a two- 
fold testimony of Augustine. The first is contained in his treatise 
against Faustus the Manichee, Lib. xr. c. 5, where Augustine says 
that “the scripture is settled upon a certain lofty throne to com- 
mand the service of every faithful and pious understanding!" The 
second is in his book de Vera Religione, c. 31, where the same 
Augustine says that “it is lawful for pure minds to know the eternal 
law of God, but not lawful to judge it.” Here also Stapleton seeks 
to escape under the screen of one of his customary distinctions. 
He says that the church, as it denotes the body of the faithful, 1s 
subject to the scriptures; but, as it denotes the pastors, governors, 
and prelates, is not subject, because they rather judge of the scrip- 
ture not yet accepted, in order to its acceptation: and thus he 
seeks to elude both passages from Augustine. But Augustine un- 
doubtedly speaks of the whole body of the church, when he says 
that every faithful understanding should serve the scriptures; in 
which words he embraces the bishops and prelates. And certainly 
in that chapter he speaks especially of those whose office it is to 
expound the scriptures, that is, of the pastors themselves. Are not 
these also obliged to be subject to the scriptures, and to submit 
their understandings to them? See what things these popish pre- 
lates arrogate to themselves! Augustine therefore would not have 
even these exercise what is called an authoritative judgment upon 
scripture, but rather do it service. Next, as to his assertion that 
it is the privilege of the pastors to judge of scripture not yet 
accepted; I demand whether scripture be yet accepted or no? 
They cannot deny that scripture hath been long ago accepted. It 
follows, therefore, that this judgment of the church is at an end. 
Nor is the sense of Augustine different in the second passage, as 
may easily be perceived from observing his own words. He says 
that the church does not judge the scripture (which he calls the 
law, rule, and truth), but only according to the scripture. For he 
uses there a similitude taken from the civil laws, which agrees ex- 
cellently well with our defence. “Just as it happens in the case of 
temporal laws (says Augustine), although men judge of them when 
they institute them, yet when they are instituted and confirmed, it 
will not be lawful even for the judge to judge concerning them, 


[1 Excellentia canonice auctoritatis veteris et novi Testamenti ...tan- 
quam in sede quadam sublimiter constituta est, cui serviat omnis fidelis et 
pius intellectus. — Cont. Faust. Manich. xr. c. 5. T. x. p. 207.] 


[WHITAKER.] di 


354 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ou. 


but according to them!;” the same is the case of the divine 
law. For such is the gist of his comparison. But who hath 
authority to establish divine laws? Not men, but God alone. f 
therefore God hath made and promulgated these laws, then they 
are laws without the judgment and acceptation of the church. For- 
asmuch then as the scriptures are made and promulgated by God, 
they ought not to be subjected to human judgment, nor can any 
one lawfully sit in judgment upon them. God hath established 
these laws. It is our part to receive, acknowledge, venerate, obey, 
submit ourselves to them, and judge of every thing according to 
them, not to exercise judgment upon them. And this all men with- 
out exception are bound to do; yea, the prelates themselves, and 
those who hold the highest authority in the church. 

But here he declares that he will immediately close the mouths 
of us heretics. Let us attend and see how he performs his promise. 
Calvin, Instit. Lib. 1. c. 9, disputes against those who introduce en- 
thusiasm, and shews that their enthusiastical spirits, of which they 
boast, are to be judged of by the scriptures. They say, that it is 
unjust to subject the Holy Spirit to scripture. Calvin answers, that 
no injury is done to the Holy Spirit, when he is examined by scrip- 
ture, because in that way he is tried by no foreign rule, but only 
compared with himself. Now he is always equal to, and like him- 
self; he is inevery respect at perfect harmony and agreement with 
himself, and nowhere at variance with himself: this, therefore, is 
not injurious to him. These things are most truly spoken by 
Calvin. Hence Stapleton gathers this argument: As, says he, it 
is no insult to the Holy Spirit to be examined by the scriptures, so 
it is not an insult to the scripture to be examined by the voice and 
testimony of the church. But this reasoning of Stapleton will then 
only be conclusive, when he shall have shewn and proved, that the 
analogy and proportion of the church to the scripture is similar to 
that of the scripture to the Holy Spirit; which is what he will never 
be able to prove. For the whole scripture is divinely inspired, and 
ever in harmony with the Spirit. Therefore every spirit which 
agrees not with scripture is to be rejected: but all churches do not. 
agree with scripture. Here then halts this so boasted argument 
of Stapleton’s, wherewith he hoped to be able to close our mouths. 


[1 Sicut in istis temporalibus legibus, quanquam de his homines judicent 
cum eas instituunt, tamen cum fuerint institute atque firmatz, non licebit 
judiei de ipsis judicare, sed secundum ipsas..... ZEternam igitur legem 
mundis animis fas est cognoscere; judicare non fas est.—August. De Ver. 
Relig. cap. xxxi. T. 1. p. 977.] 


xi.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 955 


And thus far Stapleton, who is bold in words, but in argument 
loose and weak, as we have seen. Let us now dismiss him. 

Now follows our eighteenth argument, which is this: The pa- 
pists say that we believe the scripture upon the word and authority 
of the church. - I ask, therefore, what sort of faith is this, — whe- 
ther acquired or infused? They call that acquired which is gained 
by our own exertions, and human topics of persuasion ; that infused, 
which the Holy Spirit hath disseminated and inspired into our 
hearts. If they say that it is acquired (as they must needs say, 
because the authority of the church is in the place of an external 
means of persuasion), I say, that is not sufficient of itself to pro- 
duce in us a certain conviction ; but in order that we should believe 
any thing firmly, there is need of the internal infusion of the Spirit. 
This appears readily from the following passages. Deut. xxix. 4: 
* Ye have seen all these miracles," says Moses to the Israelites; 
* but God hath not given you a mind to understand, eyes to see, 
and ears to hear, unto this day." Whence we perceive that we 
believe nothing as we ought without infused faith, not even things 
the most manifest, such as were the miracles which Moses mentions. 
Matth. xvi. 17: ** Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, because flesh 
and blood hath not revealed these things unto thee, but my Father 
which is in heaven," saith Christ to Peter. Peter, indeed, had 
heard John the Baptist; he had heard Christ himself, and had 
seen many of his miracles: yet Peter nevertheless could not be- 
lieve before a divine revelation was added to all this; and therefore 
Christ attributes the whole of Peter's faith to revelation. To the 
same effect is what we read of Lydia, Acts xvi. 14, whose heart 
God is said to have opened. 1 Cor. xii. 8: “No one," says Paul, 
* can call Jesus Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." And, verse 9 of 
the same chapter, faith is reckoned amongst the gifts (yapiouara) 
of the Holy Spirit; and he speaks there of justifying faith, not of 
the faith of miracles. From these premises it is manifest that the 
faith upon which we rest is infused, and not acquired. But if they 
say that we believe the scriptures by an infused faith, they say 
precisely the same as we. For what else is that infused faith but 
the testimony of the Holy Spirit, on account of which we believe 
even the scriptures and the doctrine of scripture, and which seals 
the whole saving truth of scripture in our hearts? 

Our nineteenth argument is taken from the authority of the 
fathers, who testify that the scripture and its truth are no other- 
wise ascertained for us, and can no otherwise be confirmed in our 
souls, but by the witness of the Holy Spirit. There is a notable 

23—2 


356 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


passage of Augustine’s, Confession. Lib. x1. c. 3: “I would hear 
and understand," says he, addressing God, *how thou madest 
heaven and earth. Moses wrote this: he wrote, and departed: he 
passed from hence to thee; nor is he now before me. For, if he 
were, I would hold him, and ask him, and beseech him for thy 
sake, to unfold these things to me, and I would lend the ears of 
my body to the sounds which should issue from his lips. But if he 
were to speak in the Hebrew tongue, it would strike my senses in 
vain ; nor would any of his discourse reach my understanding : but if 
he spoke in Latin, I should know what he said. But how should I 
know whether he spoke the truth ? And evenif I knew this, should 
I know it from him? Surely within, inwardly in the home of my 
thoughts, truth, which is neither Hebrew, nor Greek, nor Latin, 
nor barbarian, without the organs of mouth or tongue, without the 
sound of syllables, would say, He speaks the truth; and 1, ren- 
dered certain immediately, should say confidently to that man of 
thine, Thou speakest truth. Since then I cannot interrogate him, 
thee I entreat, O Truth, filled with whom he uttered words of 
truth; thee, O my God, I entreat, have mercy on my sins, and do 
thou, who didst grant to him thy servant to speak these things, 
grant to me also to understand them!" Thus Augustine. In which 
plaee he teaches us, that that publie and external judgment of 
the church, which the papists have so often in their mouths, hath 
not strength sufficient to engender faith. For they will not, I 
suppose, attribute more to the church than to Moses and the pro- 
phets. If therefore, although Moses and the prophets too were to 
rise from the dead and declare that what they wrote was true, yet 
their testimony would not suffice us for faith, but we should require 
in addition the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, and a divine 


[1 Audiam et intelligam quomodo fecisti coelum et terram. Scripsit hoc 
Moses, scripsit et abiit; transivit hinc ad te. Neque etiam nunc ante me 
est: nam si esset, tenerem eum, et rogarem eum, et per te obsecrarem, ut 
mihi ista panderet, et preberem aures corporis mei sonis erumpentibus ex 
ore ejus. At si Hebrea voce loqueretur, frustra pulsaret sensum meum, nec 
inde mentem meam quicquam tangeret. Si autem Latine, scirem quid . 
diceret: sed unde scirem an vera diceret? Quod si et hoc scirem, num 
ab illo scirem? — Intus utique mihi, intus in domicilio cogitationis, nec 
Hebreea nec Greeca nec Latina nec barbara veritas sine oris et lingue organis, 
sine strepitu syllabarum diceret, Verum dicit; et ego statim certus confidenter 
illi homini tuo dicerem, Verum dicis. Cum ergo illum interrogare non possum, 
te, quo plenus vera dixit, Veritas, rogo; te, Deus meus, rogo, parce peccatis 
meis, et qui illi servo tuo dedisti heec dicere, da et mihi heec intelligere.—Aug. 
Confess. x1. iii. T. 1. p. 232.] 


x1. | | QUESTION THE THIRD. 357 


persuasion of the truth itself; then certainly neither shall we believe 
the church's testimony, unless the same testimony of the Holy 
Spirit be, in the same manner, added. 

The same Augustine says also, in his book Contra Epist. Fund. 
c. 14, that, “in order that we may obtain an understanding of what 
we believe, it is requisite that our minds should be inwardly confirmed 
and illuminated by the Deity himself?" And in his book De Vera 
Religione, c. 31, he writes thus, as we have just heard: “ It is law- 
ful for pure minds to understand the eternal law [of God], but to 
judge it is unlawful?" Where then are those who arrogate to them- 
selves this Judicial power, which they would exercise upon the scrip- 
tures, whose authority is supreme? Basil, upon Ps. 115, writes of 
faith thus beautifully and truly: “ Faith," says he, “is that which 
draws the soul to assent by a force transcending the methods of 
logic: faith is that produced, not by the necessary demonstrations 
of geometry, but by the energy of the Holy Spirit*" Thus we 
believe not till the Holy Ghost—not the church—hath inspired us 
with faith. Hereto appertains also what Ambrose says, De Fide 
ad Gratian. Lib. 1. e. 5: “Do not,” says he, * O Arian, estimate 
divine things by our (sayings, or writings, or authorities, or 
words); but believe them divine, when you find that they are 
not human®.” Divine things, therefore, are proved by them- 
selves, are believed on their own account. Salvian, the bishop, 
De Providentia, Lib. rr, writes thus: “ All human sayings need 
arguments and witnesses, but the word of God is its own witness ; 
because it must needs be, that whatever incorruptible truth speaks, 
should be the incorruptible testimony of truth 6." 

We have besides the testimonies of papists themselves. For the 
chief popish writers may be cited in this cause. Gabriel Biel, in 
Sentent. Lib. ur. Dist. 25, in Dub. 3, speaks thus: ** Catholic veri- 
ties, without any approbation of the church, are by their own na- 
ture immutable, and immutably true, and so are to be considered 


[2 Ut... quod eredimus intelligere mereamur, non jam hominibus, sed ipso 
Deo intrinsecus mentem nostram firmante atque illuminante. T. x. p. 192.] 

[3 Vide supra, p. 354.] 

[4 9 $mép Tas Xoytkàs peOddous jv Nrvxrjv eis avykaráÜeaw &Akovaa, k.r. À.— 
T. 1. p. 313, 5. Whitaker, in making this citation, writes incorrectly cvy- 
xataBaow for ovykarabeow. | 

[^ Noli, Arriane, ex nostris sestimare divina, sed divina crede ubi hu- 
mana non invenis.—Opp. T. 1v. p. 122. Par. 1603.] 

(© Humana omnia dicta argumentis et testibus egent, Dei autem sermo 
ipse sibi testis est: quia necesse est quicquid incorrupta veritas loquitur, in- 
corruptum sit testimonium veritatis.—RSalv. Opp. Par. 1684, p. 43.] 


358 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. xr. 


immutably catholic!.” But this is a catholic verity about which we 
inquire : itis, therefore, immutable in its nature, and immutably to be 
considered catholic, and that, without the approbation of the church. 
Hosius in his Confessio Petrocoviensis, cap. 16, says that we believe 
the gospel on no other score, but on account of the voice of God 
speaking within and teaching us?. This he affirms more than once 
in that book, although afterwards he tries in some degree to 
correct and excuse himself. Melchior Canus, Loc. Commun. Lib. - 
II, €. 8, disputes upon this question at great length, and, though 
differing from us in words, agrees with us in substance. For he 
says, that, without infused faith we can believe nothing necessarily, 
nor be persuaded of any thing certainly. But that faith which 
springs from the church's judgment is acquired; whereas infused 
faith proceeds from the Holy Spirit. Therefore, even by the con- 
fession of the papists themselves, the scripture is to us what it is, 
that is, the seripture, on account of the authority of God; and in 
order that we should certainly believe what we receive in scripture, 
we have need of the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. Cani- 
sius, in his Catechism, in the chapter upon the precepts of the 
church, sect. 16, says that we “believe, adhere, and attribute the 
greatest authority to scripture on account of the testimony of the 
divine Spirit which speaks in it?." Hence two things are collected : 
first, that the Holy Spirit speaks in scripture; secondly, that the 
Holy Spirit, speaking in scripture, persuades us to believe scripture 
and assign to it the greatest authority. So Stapleton in the last 
chapter of his first book: “It is not derogatory to the sacred scrip- 
ture that it receives witness from the church, although it have greater 
testimony from the Spirit of God, who is its author." If this be 
true, why hath Stapleton afterwards disputed so keenly against this 
testimony of the Spirit, which he had himself confessed to be greater 
than the testimony of the church? And Bellarmine himself, in his 
MS. lectures upon Thomas’ Secunda Secunde, Qusest. 1, Art. 1, Dub. 1, 
teaches that we believe, not on account of the church, but on ac- 
count of the revelation of God; and refutes the contrary opinions 
of certain others. Thus we conclude that our opinion is true not only 
in itself, but even in the judgment of our adversaries themselves. 
And so much upon the third question. 

[1 Sicut veritates catholieze absque omni approbatione ecclesie ex natura 
rei sunt immutabiles, et immutabiliter vere, ita sunt immutabiliter catholieze 
reputandze.—p. 253. Brixis, 1574.] 

[? .. propter Dei vocem intus loquentis.—p. 21. Opp. Lugd. 1564.] 


[3 Scripturee propter testimonium divini Spiritus in illa loquentis credi- 
mus, &c.—Opus Catech. p. 157. Colon. 1577.] 


THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. 


QUESTION IV. 


CONCERNING THE PERSPICUITY OF SCRIPTURE. 





CHAPTER I. 
OF THE STATE OF THE QUESTION. 


IN commencing to speak of this question, we must return to 
that foundation which was laid at the beginning. In John v. 39, 
Christ says, ** Search the scriptures,” epevvate ras ypadas. The 
precept of Christ, therefore, is plain, declaring that the scriptures 
should be searched: whence the question arises, whether those 
sacred scriptures, which we are commanded to search, are so full 
of obscurity and difficulty as to be unintelligible to us ; or whether 
there be not rather a light and clearness and perspicuity in scrip- 
ture, so as to make it no useless task for the people to be engaged 
and occupied in their perusal. Here, therefore, we have to dispute 
concerning the nature of scripture. But, before coming to the 
argument, we must see what is the opinion of our adversaries upon 
this matter, and what is our own. As to our own opinion, the 
papists certainly either do not understand it; or, if they do, treat 
us unfairly and slander us in an impudent manner. For we never 
said that every thing in scripture is easy, perspicuous, and plain; 
that there is nothing obscure, nothing difficult to be understood ; 
but we confess openly that there are many obscure and difficult 
passages of scripture: and yet these men object to us this, and 
affirm that we maintain the scriptures to be perfectly easy. 

The council of Trent hath defined or expressly determined no- 
thing upon this matter. We must, therefore, investigate the opinion 
of our adversaries by the help of other writings of papists, so as to 
be enabled to discover the true state of the controversy. Eckius, the 
most insolent of popish writers, in his Enchiridion, Loc. rv., writing 
of the scripture, objects to us this opinion, —that the scripture is so 
easy, that even the ignorant people may and ought to read it. 


360 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cu. 


His words are these: ‘The Lutherans contend that the sacred scrip- 
tures are clear ; and accordingly laymen and doting old women treat 
of them in a style of authority!" Whence we understand that their 
mind and opinion is, that the people are to be kept from reading 
the scriptures, because they are so obscure as that they cannot be 
understood by laies, women, and the vulgar. We hold the con- 
trary, that the scriptures are not so difficult but that they may 
be read with advantage, and ought to be read, by the people. 
Hosius also, in his third book of the authority of the church against 
Brentius, is copious in proving and establishing the exceeding great 
obscurity of the sacred writings. So the Censors of Cologne, against 
Monhemius, write to precisely the same effect: for they say in 
their preface, that the difficulty of scripture “may be argument 
enough that all are not to be indiscriminately admitted to the read- 
ing of it.” Hence they conclude that the unlearned are to be 
prohibited reading scripture, even the history of Christ’s passion ; 
in which they say that there are so many doubtful points, that even 
the learned can hardly reconcile them. Thus they permit no part of 
scripture to the people, not even that most sweet and easy narra- 
tive, altogether worthy of our perusal and meditation, which con- 
tains the history of the death of Christ.  Andradius, Orthodox. 
Eaplic. Lib. rr., disputes largely upon the obscurity of scripture. 
Lindanus, in his Panoplia, Lib. m1. c. 6, affirms of all scripture that 
which Peter said only of certain subjects handled in Paul’s Epistles: 
for he says that there are, throughout the whole body of scripture, 
many things “hard to be understood,” and that such is the unani- 
mous opinion of divines. Stapleton, Lib. x. c. 2, says that the 
church ought to interpret scripture on account of the difficulties 
which present themselves generally and in most places. The Rhe- 
mists, in their annotations upon 2 Pet. in. 16, say that the whole 
scripture is difficult, but especially the Epistles of Paul; whereas 
Peter, as shall appear hereafter, affirms neither: all that Peter 
observes is, that there are some things in Paul's Epistles * hard to 
be understood, which the unlearned wrest, as they do the other 
scriptures, to their own destruction.” What they subjoin out of 
Augustine, that of all things which Paul taught, nothing is more 
difficult than what he writes concerning the righteousness of faith, 
can by no means be conceded. For if Paul ever said any thing 
plainly, he hath declared his mind upon this subject in a perspi- 


[! Lutherani contendunt scripturas sacras esse claras; ideo laici et deliree 
anus eas tractant imperiose.] 


1. | QUESTION THE FOURTH. 361 


cuous discourse. The same Rhemists, in their marginal annotation 
upon Luke vi. 1, attribute to us this opinion, “that all things are 
very easy.” The Jesuit Bellarmine affirms that there are many 
obscurities in scripture; which we also concede: but when he de- 
termines the state of the question to be this, whether scripture be 
so plain of itself, as to suffice without any interpretation for decid- 
ing and putting an end to all controversies of faith of its own self, 
he fights without an adversary: at least he hath no adversaries 
in us upon this point.  Prateolus, in his Klenchus Hereticorum, 
Lib. xvi. e. 20, says that it is the common article of all sectaries to 
affirm that the scriptures are clear of themselves, and need no inter- 
pretation. Sixtus Senensis, in his Bibliotheca, Lib. vr. Annot. 151, 
objects to us this error,—that we say that the whole scriptures are 
so clear and perspicuous of their own nature as to be capable of 
being understood by any one, however illiterate, unless some exter- 
nal obstacle be interposed. Costerus the Jesuit, in his Enchiridion 
of Controversies lately published, confesses that many things in 
scripture are plain; but adds that many things are not of such a 
nature as to be intelligible to every body without any trouble. 

But they do us injustice, and openly preach falsehood concerning 
us, when they affirm us to say that all things in. scripture are so 
plain that they may be understood by any unlearned person, and 
need no exposition or interpretation. Hence we see, both what they 
think, namely, that the scriptures are so obscure that they ought 
not to be read by the unlearned ; and what they say, but falsely 
say, that we think, that all things are plain in the scriptures, and 
that they suffice without any interpretation to determine all contro- 
versies. Let us now see what our opinion really is. 

Luther, in his assertion of the articles condemned by Leo X., 
in the preface, says that the seripture is its own most plain, easy, 
and certain interpreter, proving, judging, and illustrating all 
things. This is said by him most truly, if it be candidly under- 
stood. The same author, in his book of the Slavery of the Will 
against the Diatribe of Erasmus, writes almost in the beginning, 
that in the scriptures there is nothing abstruse, nothing obscure, 
but that all things are plain. And because this may seem a para- 
dox, he afterwards explains himself thus: he confesses that many 
places of scripture are obscure, that there are many words and 
sentences shrouded in difficulty, but he affirms nevertheless that no 
dogma is obscure; as, for instance, that God is one and three, that 
Christ hath suffered, and will reign for ever, and so forth. All 


362 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


which is perfectly true: for although there is much obseurity in 
many words and passages, yet all the articles of faith are plain. 
Stapleton, Lib. x. cap. 3, interprets these words of Luther, as if he 
said, that all the difficulty of scripture arose from ignorance of 
grammar and figures; and he objects to us Origen and Jerome, 
who certainly were exquisitely skilled in grammar and rhetorie, 
and yet confess themselves that they were ignorant of many things, 
and may have erred in many places. We answer, that what he 
blames in Luther is most true, if it be rightly understood: for 
he who can always arrive at the grammatical sense of scripture, 
will, beyond all doubt, best explain and interpret the scriptures. 
But hitherto no one hath been able to do this every where and in 
all places. Certainly the grammatical meaning of scripture, as it 
is ever the best and truest, so is it sometimes the hardest to be 
found; so that it is no wonder that Origen and Jerome himself, 
although both of them most skilful grammarians, may have erred 
in the interpretation of scripture. Luther adds besides, that the 
things themselves are manifest in scripture; and that therefore we 
need not be put to much trouble, if the words be sometimes in 
many places less manifest. His words are these: * The things 
themselves are in light; we need not care, therefore, though some 
signs of the things be in darkness!" But some persons complain 
greatly of the obscurity of the things also, so that this distinction 
of Luther's between the things and the signs of the things may 
seem to be idle. Luther answers that this occurs, not from the 
obscurity and difficulty of the things themselves, but from our 
blindness and ignorance. And this he very properly confirms by 
the testimony of Paul, 2 Cor. iu. 14, 15, 16, where Paul says that 
* the vail is placed upon the hearts of the Jews until this very day, 
which vail is done away in Christ;" and from 2 Cor. iv. 3, where 
the same apostle says, “If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them 
which are lost:" and he illustrates the same thing by the simili- 
tude of the sun and the day, both of which, although very clear in 
themselves, are invisible to the blind. ‘“ There is nothing,” says he, 
* brighter than the sun and the day: but the blind man cannot 
even see the sun, and there are some also who flee the light.” 
Stapleton endeavours to take this answer from him. He says that 


{1 Nihil refert, si res sit in luce, an aliquod ejus signum sit in tenebris.— 
Opp. Witeberg. T. rr. p. 459. 2.] 

(? Eadem temeritate solem obscurumque diem culparet, qui ipse sibi 
oculos velaret.—-Ibid. p. 460.] 


1. | QUESTION THE FOURTH. 363 


Luther, in this way, condemns all the fathers, and so all antiquity, 
of error and blindness. But I answer, that Luther is speaking of 
things, that is of the nature of the doctrine and of the articles of 
the christian religion: the truth of which (though not of all, yet of 
those which are necessary to salvation), it is manifest from their 
writings, was thoroughly seen by the fathers. He is not speaking 
of the several words and passages wherein they might sometimes 
easily err, without, nevertheless, in the least incurring the blame 
of blindness on that account. 

But Erasmus, in his Diatribe, contends that even some dog- 
mas are obscure, as the doctrine of the Trinity, of the distinction 
of Persons, of sin against the Holy Ghost, and such like; and 
to this sense he tortures that passage which is contained in Rom. 
xi. 33, where Paul says that the “judgments of God are unsearch- 
able, and his ways past finding out.” Luther answers, that these 
doctrines are indeed obscure in themselves; but that they are 
plain so far forth as they are proposed in scripture, if we will 
be content with that knowledge which God hath propounded and 
conceded to his church in the scripture, and not search into every 
thing more curiously than becomes us. But as to the passage 
from Paul, he answers, that indeed the things of God are obscure, 
but that the things of scripture are clear; that the judgments of 
God concerning the number of the elect, the day and hour of the 
judgment, and such-like, are unknown and inscrutable; but that 
those things which God hath revealed in his word are by no means 
inscrutable to us; and that Paul in that place spoke of the things 
of God, not of the things of scripture. Furthermore he says, 
that the reason why so many dispute about the things of scripture 
is to be found in the perversity and depraved desires of men, espe- 
cially the sophists and schoolmen, who, not content with the sim- 
plicity of scripture, have rendered every thing obscure and intricate 
by their traps and devices; but that the scripture must not be 
falsely blamed on account of men’s abuse of it. Luther uses ano- 
ther distinction also in that place. He says that the perspicuity 
or obscurity of scripture is either internal or external; the internal 
is that of the heart itself, the external is in the words. If we 
speak of the internal obscurity or perspicuity of scripture, he says 
that not even one jot is in this way clear in the scripture without 
the internal light of the Holy Spirit; for that all things in this 
view and respect are obscure to the fleshly understanding of men, 
according to that which is said in Ps. xiv.: ** The fool hath said in 
his heart, that there is no God.” But if we understand the exter- 


364 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. | oH. 


nal clearness or obscurity of scripture, he says that all doctrines 
are in this way clear, and brought to light in the ministry of the 
word. And this distinction is very necessary: for although, in 
the external way, we perfectly hold all the doctrines of religion, 
we yet understand nothing internally to salvation, nor have learned 
any dogma aright, without the teaching of the Holy Spirit. 

Assuredly, this is the difference between theology and philoso- 
phy: since it is only the external light of nature that is required 
to learn thoroughly the arts of philosophy; but to understand thoo- 
logy aright, there is need of the internal light of the Holy Spirit, 
because the things of faith are not subject to the teaching of mere 
human reason. We may, in a certain manner, be acquainted with 
the doctrines of scripture, and obtain an historical faith by the 
ministry of the word, so as to know all the articles of faith, and 
deem them to be true, and all without the inward light of the 
Spirit, as many impious men and devils do; but we cannot have 
the wAnpodopia, that is, a certain, solid, and saving knowledge, 
without the Holy Spirit internally illuminating our minds. And 
this internal clearness it is, which wholly flows from the Holy 
Ghost. Other arts serve our purpose when only externally under- 
stood; but this is of no avail unless understood internally. Mean- 
while Luther was far from such madness as to say, that there was 
nothing difficult in scripture, or that it did not need an interpre- 
tation. Yea, on the contrary, in the preface to his Commentary 
upon the Psalms, he acknowledges that there are many ob- 
scurities and difficulties in the scripture, which God hath left us, 
as if on purpose to keep us constantly scholars in the school of 
the Holy Spirit. And in the same place he affirms, that a 
man must be impudent who would say that he understood even 
any one book thoroughly: and the same hath ever been the 
opinion of us all. 

The state of the question, eee is not really such as the 
papists would have it appear; but our fundamental principles are 
these: First, that the scriptures are sufficiently clear to admit of 
their being read by the people and the unlearned with some fruit 
and utility. Secondly, that all things necessary to salvation are 
propounded in plain words in the scriptures. Meanwhile, we con- 
cede that there are many obscure places, and that the scriptures 
need explication; and that, on this account, God’s ministers are to 
be listened to when they expound the word of God, and the men 
best skilled in scripture are to be consulted. So far concerning 
the state of the question. 


II. | QUESTION THE FOURTH. 365 


CHAPTER II. 


WHY GOD WOULD HAVE MANY OBSCURITIES IN THE SCRIPTURES. 


We should carefully bear in memory the preceding distinctions 
drawn by Luther; for they are sufficient to obviate almost all the 
arguments of the papists in this question. But before proceeding 
to their arguments, I have thought it proper to set forth the rea- 
sons on account of which God was willing that there should be so 
many things of considerable obscurity and difficulty in the scriptures. 
This contributes much to the better understanding of the matter 
upon which we treat. The fathers write excellently well upon this 
subject, as Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromat. Lib. vi.!, Augustine, de 
Doct. Christ. Lib. 11.2, Gregory, Homil. vr. in Ezechiel?, and others. 

Now the causes are such as follow: First, God would have 
us to be constant in prayer, and hath scattered many obscurities up 
and down through the scriptures, in order that we should seek his 
help in interpreting them and discovering their true meaning. 
Secondly, he wished thereby to excite our diligence in reading, 
meditating upon, searching and comparing the scriptures; for, if 
every thing had been plain, we should have been entirely slothful 
and negligent. Zhirdly, he designed to prevent our losing interest 
in them; for we are ready to grow weary of easy things: God, 
therefore, would have our interest kept up by difficulties. Fourthly, 
God willed to have that truth, so sublime, so heavenly, sought and 
found with so much labour, the more esteemed by us on that account. 
For we generally despise and contemn whatever is easily acquired, 
near at hand, and costs small or no labour, according to the Greek 
proverb, ézi Ovpas tyv vóptav. But those things which we find 
with great toil and much exertion, those, when once we have found 
them out, we esteem highly and consider their value proportionally 
greater. Fifthly, God wished by this means to subdue our pride and 
arrogance, and to expose to us our ignorance. We are apt to think 
too honourably of ourselves, and to rate our genius and acuteness — 
more highly than is fitting, and to promise ourselves too much from 
our science and knowledge. Stxthly, God willed that the sacred 
mysteries of his word should be opened freely to pure and holy 
minds, not exposed to dogs and swine. Hence those things which 


[(! P. 677, et seqq. ed. Morell. Paris. 1629.] 
[? cap. 6, pp. 35, 36. ed. Bruder. Lips. 1838.] 
[3 Opp. p. 1261, a. Paris. 1705.] 


366 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


are easy to holy persons, appear so many parables to the profane. 
For the mysteries of scripture are like gems, which only he that 
knows them values; while the rest, like the cock in /Esop, despise 
them, and prefer the most worthless objects to what is most beauti- 
ful and excellent. Seventhly, God designed to call off our minds 
from the pursuit of external things and our daily occupations, and 
transfer them to the study of the scriptures. Hence it is now 
necessary to give some time to their perusal and study; which 
we certainly should not bestow upon them, if we found every thing 
plain and open. ighthly, God desired thus to accustom us to a 
certain internal purity and sanctity of thought and feeling. For 
they who bring with them profane minds to the reading of scrip- 
ture, lose their trouble and oil: those only read with advantage, 
who bring with them pure and holy minds. NVinthly, God willed 
that in his church some should be teachers, and some disciples ; 
some more learned, to give instruction ; others less skilful, to receive 
it; so as that the honour of the sacred scriptures and the divinely 
instituted ministry might, in this manner, be maintained. 

Such was the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, wherewith, as Au- 
gustine expresses it, De Doctrina Christ. Lib. n. e. 6, he hath 
modified the scriptures so as to maintain their honour and consult 
our good. Other causes more besides these might be adduced; 
but it is not necessary to enumerate more. 





CHAPTER IIL. 
WHEREIN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PAPISTS ARE OBVIATED. 


Let us come now to the arguments of our adversaries; which 
indeed might be omitted, as neither injuring, nor even touching our 
cause, nor having any force against us whatsoever : for all that they 
prove is, that there are some difficult passages in scripture, which 
we concede.  Costerus, a papist, in his Enchiridion, cap. 1, men- 
tions and sets forth some places full of obscurity and difficulties, as 
1 Pet. iii. 19, where Christ is said to have “preached to the spirits 
in prison, which were sometime disobedient in the days of Noah,” 
&c.; and 1 Cor. xv. 29, “ What shall they do who are baptized 
for the dead, if the dead rise not at all?” 1 Cor. iii. 15, “If any 
man’s work be burned, he shall suffer loss; yet he himself shall be 


HI. | QUESTION THE FOURTH. 367 


saved, yet so as by fire." He might verily have produced a thou- 
sand such passages; but, in order to dispute pertinently against 
Luther and us, he ought to have shewn some doctrines or articles 
of faith not openly and plainly set forth in scripture. Bellarmine 
alleges five arguments in order to prove the. scriptures to be ob- 
scure, which we acknowledge in some places to be true. But let 
us see of what sort these arguments are. 

His rirst argument is taken from the authority of scripture, 
from which he cites some passages. In the first place he reasons 
thus: David was ignorant of many things, therefore much more we; 
consequently, the scriptures are obscure. Now that David was 
ignorant of many things, he proves from Psalm exix., where it is 
said, * Give me understanding, and I will search thy law ;" where 
also the psalmist entreats God “to teach him" his law, to “ illumi- 
nate his eyes;" and in many places of that same Psalm he ingenu- 
ously confesses his ignorance of many things. To the same purpose 
he alleges what Jerome writes of David, to Paulinus, Ep. 13, de 
Institit. Monachi: “If so great a prophet confesses the darkness of 
ignorance, with what night of ignorance do you suppose that we, 
mere babes and hardly more than sucklings, are surrounded! ?” 
From all which he concludes that the scriptures are obscure. I 
answer, in the first place, these things do not touch the question. 
There is no one amongst us who does not confess with David, that 
God is to be constantly besought to teach us his law, to illuminate 
our hearts, &c. Therefore the example of David is objected to us 
in vain. Who would believe that these men know what they are 
saying? Do we indeed affirm that the scripture is so plain, that 
God needs not to be prayed to to teach us hislaw, his will, and his 
word? No one was ever so impious and so mad. Therefore we 
ought continually to pray with David, that God would give us 
understanding, that he would open our eyes, illuminate our minds, 
and teach us himself: otherwise we shall never understand any 
thing aright. For it is not enough to know the words, the letter 
or the history, but a full persuasion is required. This it was that 
David sought, that he might more and more make progress in true 
understanding and faith. Secondly, David speaks there not prin- 
cipally of the external understanding (for doubtless he knew the 
letter, and the grammatical and historical sense of most passages), 
but of that internal full assurance whereof we read Luke i. 1, in 


[! Si tantus propheta tenebras ignoranti confitetur, qua nos putas parvulos 
et pene lactentes inscitize nocte cireumdari ?—Opp. T. 1. p. 323. Veron. 1734.] 


368 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


order to the obtaining of which we maintain that we must labour 
with continual prayers. Thus David was ignorant of some things, 
and did not perfectly penetrate the meaning of God and the mys- 
teries of his word; which is plain from Jerome himself in that same 
place quoted by Bellarmine. For thus he subjoins: “ Unless the 
whole of what is written be opened by him who hath the key of 
David, who openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth and no man 
openeth, they can be unfolded by no other hand!" 

The second passage of scripture which he objects is Luke xxiv. 27, 
from which place he reasons thus: Christ interpreted the scriptures 
to his disciples: therefore the scriptures are not easy, but need 
an interpreter, I answer, in the first place, which of us ever took 
away the interpretation of scripture? Certainly, none of us; for 
we all readily confess that the scriptures need interpretation. 
Secondly, those disciples were crushed and stricken at that time 
with a sort of amazement, and slow and unapt to understand any 
thing ; so that it is no wonder that they could not understand the 
scriptures without an interpretation. Thirdly, those who under- 
stand the grammatical sense of scripture, ought nevertheless to 
hear the exposition of scripture, to help them to a better under- 
standing. This we never denied. 

In the third place, he objects to us the case of the eunuch, hee 
vii., whom he states to have been a pious man and studious of the 
scripture; and to prove this he cites the superfluous testimony of 
Jerome, from his epistle to Paulinus concerning the study of the 
scriptures. He, being asked by Philip if he understood what he was 
reading, replied, ** How can I understand, unless some man declare 
it unto me?" "Therefore, says Bellarmine, the scriptures need inter- 
pretation. I answer, in the first place, we concede that many things 
in scripture are obscure and need interpretation ; therefore this place 
concludes nothing against us. Secondly, although this eunuch was 
pious and very studious of scripture, he was yet unskilful and not 
much familiar with scripture, as is plain from his question; for he 
asked Philip whether the prophet spoke of himself, or of some other 
person. Now, we do not say that every thing is immediately plain 
and easy in the scriptures, so as to be intelligible to every one; 
but we say that those things which at first seem obscure and diffi- 
cult, are afterwards rendered easy, if one be diligent in reading 


[! Nisi aperta fuerint universa que scripta sunt, ab eo qui habet clavem 
Davidis, qui aperit et nemo claudit, claudit et nemo aperit, nullo alio rese- 
rante pandentur.—Ibid. p. 324.] 


rit. | QUESTION THE FOURTH. 369 


them, and bring with him a pure and pious mind. Thirdly, as to 
Jerome, we say that he speaks of a certain higher understanding 
and illumination, as is manifest from his own words in that place. 
For thus he writes of that eunuch?: “ While he held the book, and 
conceived in thought, uttered with his tongue and sounded with his 
lips, the words of the Lord, he knew not him whom in the book he 
ignorantly worshipped. Philip comes, shews him Jesus, who lay 
concealed in the letter. O wonderful power of a teacher! In the 
same hour the eunuch believes, is baptized, and becomes faithful 
and holy, a master in place of a disciple.” 

In the fourth place, he objects to us the words of Peter which 
are contained in 2 Epistle iii. 16, where Peter says expressly that 
there are dvavonra Tiva (some things hard to be understood) in 
Paul's epistles. And the Jesuit bids us observe, that Peter does not 
say that there are some things hard to be understood merely by 
the unlearned and unstable, but simply and absolutely dvavonra, 
difficulties ; whence he wishes to infer that they are difficult to all, 
though especially to the unlearned. And to this purpose he al- 
leges the testimony of Augustine, De fide et operibus, c. 16, where 
he confesses that a certain place in Paul seems to him very difficult. 
I answer, first, We concede that some places are hard to be under- 
stood: therefore, this passage does not make against us. Secondly, 
Peter does not say that vavra, all things, but only «wa, some 
things, are hard to be understood. And what if some things be 
obscure? Yet it follows that the greatest part is plain and easy. 
Thirdly, Although Peter inveighs against the apaers kat ao T9píik- 
vous, “the unlearned and unstable," who epe(9XAoUc: ** wrest” the 
scriptures, he nevertheless does not debar them altogether from the 
reading of the scriptures. Fourthly, Peter does not say that Paul's 
epistles are obscure, nay, not even that there are some obscurities in 
Paul's epistles, but only in those things concerning which he himself 
writes in hisown. Now Peter speaks of the last judgment, and the 
destruction of the world, about which unlearned men had at that 
time many ridiculous fictions. That Peter is speaking of the subjects, 
not of the epistles of Paul, is manifest from the very words: for 
he does not say, ev ais, but év ois, which plainly refers to the rov- 


(2 Cum librum teneret et verba Domini cogitatione conciperet, lingua 
volveret, labiis personaret, ignorabat eum quem in libro nesciens venerabatur. 
Venit Philippus, ostendit ei Jesum, qui clausus latebat in litera. O mira 
doctoris virtus! ^ Eadem hora credit Eunuchus, baptizatur, et fidelis ac 
sanctus factus est, ac magister de discipulo.—Ibid. p. 272. Ep. 53.] 

24 


[ wrmiTAxzER.] 


370 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


Twv immediately preceding. In these matters and articles of our 
faith we confess that there are many difficulties, as also in other 
mysteries of our religion. The occasion of the mistake arose from 
the vulgate version, which renders in quibus, which is ambiguous. 
Beza much more properly, in order to remove the ambiguity, trans- 
lates it, inter gue. Peter, therefore, speaks not of the character of 
Paul’s epistles. But the Rhemists endeavour to overturn this reply, 
in which attempt they shew how stupid they are, while they de- 
sire to exhibit their acuteness. They say there is absolutely no 
difference between these two assertions: This author is difficult and 
obscure, and, There are many things difficult and obscure in this 
author. I answer, first, Peter does not say, as they would have 
him, that all, or many, but only some things in Paul’s epistles are 
obscure: he narrows his expression as much as possible. Secondly, 
these two assertions are not equivalent: for an author may speak 
perspicuously and plainly of things most obscure and difficult. What 
is harder to be understood than that God made the world out of 
nothing ? that God took flesh of a virgin? that God and man were 
one person? That this world shall be destroyed, and our bodies 
restored again to life after death, surpass our understanding; and 
yet concerning these the scriptures speak with the utmost clearness 
and explicitness. So much for Bellarmine’s first argument. 

His sEcoND argument is taken from the common consent of the 
ancient fathers, of whom he brings forward eight, Irenzus, Origen, 
Rufünus, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Gregory; all 
of which very learned fathers may be passed over by us, since 
they say absolutely nothing that makes against us. For they either 
say that there are some obscurities in scripture, or that, without 
the internal light of the Spirit, the scriptures cannot be rightly 
understood by us as they ought: both of which propositions we 
concede. However, let us return some reply, as briefly as we can, 
to each of the testimonies of these fathers.—The first is Irenzeus, 
who, in his second book against heresies, cap. 47, after shewing that 
there are many things, even in the creatures themselves, obscure 
and difficult, as the origin of the Nile, the vernal visits and autumnal 
departures of the birds, the ebb and flow of the sea, and other 
such like things, finally accommodates all these to scripture. **Like- 
wise,” says he, “in the scriptures we understand some things, and 
some things we commit to God.” I answer, that nothing could 


[1 Si ergo et in rebus creature quzdam quidem eorum adjacent Deo, 
quaedam autem et in nostram venerunt scientiam ; quid mali est, si et eorum 


ii. | QUESTION THE FOURTH. 371 


be said more truly; for never any man attained to all things that 
are delivered in scripture. But we speak of things necessary. 
This testimony of Ireneus avails against those, who, elate with 
pride and carried further than behoves them by curiosity, attribute 
to themselves a knowledge of all things, and especially of the scrip- 
tures: but it in no way touches us, who confess that there are 
many matters in scripture too abstruse to be perfectly understood 
by any man in this life. 

The second testimony is that of Origen, who in his twelfth 
Homily on Exodus says, that in the case of the scriptures we 
should not only employ study, but pour forth prayers also day and 
night, that the Lamb of the tribe of Juda may come and open for 
us the sealed book?, So, in his seventh book against Celsus, he 
says that the scripture is in many places obscure? I answer, We 
say also that study and diligence are required in reading the scrip- 
tures, and that assiduous prayers are also necessary. The papists, 
therefore, are impertinent, who say that we affirm that any one 
may treat the scriptures negligently and without prayer, and yet 
understand them correctly, or that the scripture is not in many 
places obscure. p 

The third father whom Bellarmine cites is Ruffinus. He, Lib. 
XI. €. 9, writes that Basil and Nazianzen were both bred at Athens, 
both colleagues for many years; and, setting aside the books of the 
philosophers, applied themselves with the utmost zeal to the scrip- 
tures, bestowing their whole attention upon them, and learned 
them from the writings and authority of the fathers, not from their 
own presumption. Hence the Jesuit concludes that the scrip- 
tures are obscure. I answer, that these distinguished men be- 
stowed this so great labour and such extraordinary diligence 
in the study of scripture, not to obtain any moderate or vulgar 
knowledge, but that they might understand the scriptures accu- 
rately, and prove fit to instruct others. Similar study and dili 
gence should be applied by all those who would discharge the 
office of pastors and teachers in the church, as was the case of 
Basil and Nazianzen; but so great labour is not necessarily re- 
quired in the people. It is sufficient for them to understand and 


que in scripturis requiruntur, universis scripturis spiritualibus existentibus, 
quidam quidem absolvamus secundum gratiam Dei, quedam autem com- 
mendemus Deo?—p. 203. B.] 
[2 Opp. T. rr. p. 174. Par. 1733.] 
[3 pp. 338, 9. ed. Spencer. Cantab. 1658.] 
24—2 


€ 


312 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cm. 


hold aright the artieles of faith, and the things which are neces- 
sary to salvation. 

In the fourth place, Bellarmine objects to us Chrysostom. He 
in his fortieth Homily on the fifth chapter of the gospel of St John, 
upon these words,—epevvate Tas rypa das, *search the scriptures,” 
—says that there is need of great labour and the utmost diligence in 
the sacred scriptures, and that it behoves us to dig decp, to search 
and investigate diligently to find those things which lie concealed 
in their depths. For it is not (says he) what lies ready to hand 
and at the surface that we dig for, but what is profoundly buried 
like a treasure. I answer, these words do not prove that the scrip- 
tures are so obscure that the laity ought not to read them. We, 
for our parts, confess that the scriptures ought not to be read care- 
lessly, or without faith, as they were read by the Jews; but we 
judge both diligenee and faith to be required in the reading of 
them. The Jews read the scriptures negligently and without faith : 
we say that the scriptures are easy to the studious and faithful. 
But Bellarmine produces another testimony also, from Chrysostom's 
Opus Imperfectum upon Matthew, Hom. 44; where two reasons 
are brought why God chose that the scriptures should be obscure. 
The first is, that some might be teachers and others learners; 
because if all knew all things equally well, a teacher would not 
be necessary, and good order would not be maintained amongst 
men. ‘The second reason is, lest scripture should be not so much 
useful as contemptible, if it were understood promiscuously by all. 
I answer: This is precisely the same as we say ourselves, that God, 
induced by the fittest reasons, chose that there should be many 
obscurities in scripture. But what hath this to do with the cause 
in hand ? 

In the fifth place, he objects Ambrose, Epist. 44 ad Constan- 
tium Episcopum, where these words are found: “ The holy scripture 
is a sea, having in it deep meanings, and the profundity of prophetic 
enigmas, into which sea have entered many streams!" I answer: 
We readily confess with Ambrose, that there are many obscure 
meanings in scripture, and that scripture is like a sea: but the 
same Ambrose says also presently in the same place, that ‘there 
are also in the scriptures rivers sweet and clear, and pure fountains 
springing up unto eternal life.” So he compares scripture to rivers 

[! Mare est scriptura divina, habens in se sensus profundos, et altitudi- 


nem prophcticorum zenigmatum ; in quod mare plurima introierunt flumina. 
—Class. 1. Ep. 1. $3. T. vm. p. 181. Ambros. Opp. ed. Caillau. Paris. 1839. ] 


rit. | QUESTION THE FOURTH. 373 


also. There are, I confess, in the scripture, as in the ocean, many 
depths; but yet the same Ambrose himself says a little afterwards: 
“There are different streams of scripture. You have what you may 
drink first, what second, and what last?.” 

In the sixth place he objects Jerome, from whom he cites three 
testimonies. The first is taken from the Epistle to Paulinus on the 
Study of the Scripture, where? he writes that we cannot possibly 
learn and understand the scriptures, without some one to go before 
and shew the way, that is, without a master and interpreter; and, 
running through all the books, he shews in each that there are 
many things mystical and obscure. The second testimony of Je- 
rome is contained in the preface to his commentaries upon the 
Epistle to the Ephesians, where he says that he had bestowed 
much labour upon the scriptures, always either reading himself or 
consulting others; upon which latter account, he had gone as far 
as to Alexandria, to consult there a certain learned man called 
Didymus. The third testimony of Jerome, which Bellarmine cites 
is taken from his Epistle to Algasia, Quest. 8, where Jerome 
writes, that the whole Epistle of Paul to the Romans is involved 
in exceeding great obscurity*. I answer: We willingly acknow- 
ledge and concede all these things; that is, firstly, that the scrip- 
tures cannot be perfectly understood without a master ; next, that 
there are some obscure and difficult places in scripture, and that 
teachers and masters should be consulted upon them; lastly, that 
the Epistle to the Romans is obscure; and so that some books are 
more obscure than others. Yet, meanwhile, it does not follow that 
all things in scripture are so obscure that laymen should not touch 
it, and the people should be wholly prevented and repelled from 
its perusal: for in this way it would not be lawful for any man 
whatsoever to read the scriptures. 

In the seventh place, he objects Augustine, from whom he pro- 
duces four testimonies. The first is cited from his work De Doctr. 
Christ. Lib. 1. cap. 6, where Augustine teaches that the obscurity 
of scripture is of use “‘ to tame our pride and to rouse our un- 
derstanding from listlessness, since things easily investigated are 


[? Sunt ergo et fluvii dulces atque perspicui, sunt et fontes nivei, qui saliant 
in vitam eternam. . . Diversa igitur scripturarum divinarum fluenta. Habes 
quod primum bibas, habes quod secundum, habes quod postremum.—Ibid. ] 

[? Hzc a me perstricta sunt breviter . . . . ut intelligeres, te in scripturis 
sanctis, sine previo et monstrante semitam, non posse ingredi.—Ut supra, 
p. 369.] 

[4 T. r. pp. 864—70.] 


374 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


generaly held cheap!" I answer: Yet the same father says in 
the same chapter, that the Holy Spirit provides for our hunger in 
the plainer places, and that hardly any thing can be obtained from 
those obscurer passages, which is not found said elsewhere with 
the utmost plainness. The same father, in the ninth chapter of 
the same book, says, that amongst those things which are plainly 
set down in scripture, are to be found a// those things which make 
the sum of our faith and practice?. The second testimony of Au- 
gustine is taken from his Confessions, Lib. xir. cap. 14, where 
he says, that “the depth of the divine words is wonderful?." 
I answer: we confess this to be most true in many places. But 
as there are some places such as that an elephant may swim in 
them, so there are others so disembarrassed, plain, and utterly free 
from prejudices or danger, that a lamb may, as it were, easily 
wade over them. The third testimony cited from Augustine is 
contained in his third Epistle to Volusianus, where he says that 
“the depth of the christian scriptures is such, that one may every 
day make new progress in them, although he should endeavour to 
study them alone from his earliest childhood to decrepit age, in 
the amplest leisure, with the closest study, and a genius of the 
highest order.” I answer: Here the Jesuit betrays his remarkable 
unfairness, and really singular dishonesty: for there follow imme- 
diately these words which he hath omitted: “Not that one comes at 
those things which are necessary to salvation with so much diffi- 
culty*." Besides, the same father says in the same epistle, that 
“the scripture, like a familiar friend, speaks without disguise 
to the heart, not of the learned only, but of the unlearned also; 
nor elevates with proud diction what it conceals in its mysteries, so 
as to make the duller and unlearned minds afraid to approach, 
like the poor to the rich; but invites all by its humble style, whom 
it feeds with its manifested truth, and exercises with that which is 


[1 Quod totum provisum divinitus esse non dubito ad edomandam labore 
superbiam et intellectum a fastidio revocandum, cui facile investigata ple- 
rumque vilescunt.—Opp. T. 11. p. 27.] 

{2 In eis enim que aperte in scripturis posita sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia 
que continent fidem moresque vivendi.—lIbid. p. 31.] 

(3 Mira profunditas eloquiorum tuorum, quorum ecce ante nos superficies 
blanditur parvulis: sed mira profunditas, Deus meus, mira profunditas.—T. 
I. p. 253.] ; 

[4 Tanta est enim christianarum profunditas literarum, ut in eis continuo pro- 
ficerem, si eas solas ab ineunte pueritia usque ad decrepitamsenectutem,maximo 
otio, summo studio, meliore ingenio addiscerem. Non quod ad ea quise necessa- 
ria sunt saluti tanta in eis perveniatur difficultate. —Ep. 137. n. 3. T. 11. p. 526.] 


rit. ] | QUESTION THE FOURTH. 375 


hidden.” He says, moreover, that the scripture hath in its ready 
places whatever it hath in the recondite ones: ‘“ but that, lest men 
should grow weary of what is plain, the same things again when 
covered are desired, when desired are, as it were, renewed, and 
renewed are intimated with pleasure®.” When the Jesuit passes 
all this over in silence, he displays his own extraordinary desire to 
deceive us. The fourth testimony of Augustine is found in Epist. 
exix. c. 21: “In scripture," says Augustine, * there are many more 
things that I know not, than that I know®.” I answer: This ought 
to be the true and ingenuous confession of all, to acknowledge that 
they are very far distant from the perfection of knowledge: yet 
Augustine both professes that he himself knew whatever was neces- 
sary, and concedes that it might be easily understood by others. 
The eighth testimony cited by the Jesuit is that of Gregory 
the great, in his sixth Homily upon Ezekiel, where he writes thus : 
* The very obscurity of the words of God is of great use, because 
it exercises the perception so as to be enlarged by labour, and, 
through exercise, be enabled to catch that which a lazy reader 
cannot. It hath besides this still greater advantage, that the 
meaning of the sacred scripture would be lightly esteemed, if it 
were plain in all places. In some obscure places the sweetness 
with which it refresheth the mind, when found, is proportionate to 
the toil and labour which were expended upon the search’.” I an- 
swer: Nothing could be said more truly. We confess with Gre- 
gory, that there are many obscurities in scripture, and that this 
hath happened through the divine wisdom, partly to exercise us in 
scripture, partly to prevent its being despised, partly that the 

Le er quasi amicus familiaris sine fuco ad cor loquitur indoctorum 
atque doctorum. Ea vero que in mysteriis occultat, nec ipso eloquio su- 
perbo erigit, quo non audeat accedere mens tardiuseula et inerudita, quasi 
pauper ad divitem; sed invitat omnes humili sermone, quos non solum 
manifesta pascat, sed etiam secreta exerceat veritate, hoc in promptis quod 
in reconditis habens: sed ne aperta fastidirentur, eadem rursus operta desi- 
derantur, desiderata quodammodo renovantur, renovata suaviter intimantur. 
—Id. ibid. prop. fin.] 

[ Et miror quia hoe te latet, quod non solum in aliis innumerabilibus 
rebus multa me latent, sed etiam in ipsis sanctis scripturis multo nesciam 
plura quam sciam.—Ep. 55. c. 21. n. 38. p. 190.] 

[7 Magnee utilitatis est ipsa obscuritas eloquiorum Dei, quia exercet sen- 
sum, ut fatigatione dilatetur, et exercitatus capiat quod capere non potest 
otiosus. Habet quoque adhue aliud majus, quia scripture sacr intelligen- 
tia, si in cunctis esset aperta, vilesceret. In quibusdam locis obscurioribus 
tanto majore dulcedine inventa reficit, quanto majore labore fatigat animum 
quiesita. — Opp. T. 1. p. 1213. Paris. 1705.] 


376 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


truth when discovered might give us greater pleasure. But, in 
the meanwhile, Gregory does not say, that every thing is obscure 
in seripture: yea, he plainly reclaims against such an assertion; 
for he says, * In some obscure places." Therefore it is not all, but 
some places in scripture, that are obscure, if we believe Gregory. 
But what man in his senses would reason thus: Some things in 
scripture are obscure, so as not to be understood in a moment; 
therefore either nothing can be understood, or the scriptures are 
not to be read? And so much for the Jesuit’s second argument. 

Bellarmine’s THIRD argument is founded upon necessary reason- 
ing. In scripture, says he, we must consider two things, the 
things spoken, and the way in which they are spoken. Whichever 
we regard, there is the greatest difficulty. For, firstly, the things 
are most difficult, namely, the divine mysteries which are delivered 
in the scriptures of the Trinity, the incarnation of Christ, and 
such like; and Bellarmine asks, why metaphysics are more obscure 
and difficult than the other sciences, but because of their subject- 
matter ?—because, that is, they treat of more obscure and difficult 
things? In the same way he concludes that the scriptures are hard 
and dark, because hard and dark subjects are treated of therein. I 
answer, by observing that the subjects of scripture are indeed 
obscure, hidden, abstruse, and mysterious, yet not in themselves 
but to us. When I say, in themselves—I do not mean to say it 
of the nature of the things themselves, as if the things were not 
all obscure (for I confess that they are obscure); but what I mean 
is, that the subjects of scripture, as they are set forth and delivered 
in scripture, are not obscure. For example, that God is one in 
substance and three in persons, that God was made man, and such 
like, although they be in themselves, if we regard the nature of the 
things themselves, so obscure that they can by no means be per- 
ceived by us; yet they are proposed plainly in scripture, if we will 
be content with that knowledge of them which God hath chosen to 
impart to us. As to the fact, that many have written with great 
acuteness and subtlety of these matters, I say that these subtleties 
are of no concern to the people, who can be saved without a 
knowledge of them. Yea, I say besides, that some of them are 
impious, and destructive to the very persons who invented them. 
Seripture would have us be contented with this plain, perspicuous, 
and simple doctrine, which it delivers. All difficulty therefore, if 
difficulty there be, in the things, is ours, and springs from ourselves. 
And so much of the obscurity of the things themselves. 

Now as to the manner of expression, he proves the icri obs 


ri. ] QUESTION THE FOURTH. Bn o 


to be obscure by six reasons. The first reason is, because there 
are many things in the scriptures which may seem at first sight 
contradictory and plainly repugnant to each other; such as these 
two places, Exod. xx. 5, where God threatens that he “ will 
visit the sins of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and 
fourth generation;" and Ezekiel xvii. 20, where we read that the 
very soul which sinneth shall die, and that “the son shall not bear 
the iniquity of the father." I answer: Some things may seem 
contradictory in scripture, to à man who does not consider 
them with sufficient attention ; yet it is certain, nevertheless, that 
scripture is in perfect harmony with itself. God willed that some 
such shews of contradiction should occur in scripture, that we might 
be so the more excited to diligence in reading, meditating upon, 
and collating the passages together: wherein whosoever shall use 
diligence, as Augustine formerly did in harmonizing the evangelists, 
will easily reconcile all those places which seem repugnant to each 
other. As to these passages, one readily perceives that they 
agree. For it is certain that God punishes men for their own, 
and not for other people’s sins, as we are told, Ezek. xviii. 20. 
Therefore, what is said of the punishment of parents being derived 
upon their posterity, Exod. xx. 5, must needs be understood with 
this condition, if their posterity continue in their wickedness: for 
if they avoid their parents’ sins they will not be subjected to their 
punishments.— The second reason, to prove that the scriptures are 
obscure in their manner of expression, is this: because many 
words in scripture are ambiguous, and many whole discourses also, 
as John vill. 25: Principium, qui et loquor vobis. I answer: 
This is, indeed, ambiguous, and false, and utterly ridiculous,—but 
only in the Vulgate version: for it should be translated, quod 
loquor, not qui loquor. But in the Greek text allis easy; for 
the words are tyv apyny 6 Tt Kai AAA vpiv, that is, Kata 5v 
apynv. Of which words this meaning is obvious enough: I am 
no other than what I have said that I was from the beginning.— 
The third reason is, because there are many imperfect speeches 
and sentences in scripture, as in Rom. v. 12, dovep occurs without 
any thing to correspond to it: where the Jesuit says that the 
principal word is wanting. I answer, that I cannot discover what 
word he means. confess that there is a want of an apodosis ; 
but the sentence is not so obscure as to be unintelligible, and the 
apostle seems afterwards to have subjoined the other member 
which corresponds to this.—The fourth reason is, because there 
are in scripture many sentences put out of order; as Gen. x, 31, 


378 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cu. 


we find it written thus, ** These are the children of Shem, accord- 
ing to their families and their tongues:" but in chap. xi, at the 
very commencement, the whole earth is said to have been at that 
time of one lip and one tongue. I answer, first, that in every 
discourse, and especially in histories, some inversion of the order 
of time (UoTepov mporepov) is common. The rule of Ticonius 
given long ago! was: That some things are related in scripture by 
way of anticipation, so as to be told briefly before they occurred, 
in order to prepare and make more intelligible a fuller exposition 
of each circumstance in its proper place. And Augustine hath ad- 
mirably explained that place in the following manner, De Civit. 
Dei, Lib. xvi. e. 4: * Although, therefore, these nations are said 
to have had their several languages, yet the historian returns back 
to that time, when they all had but one language; and setting out 
from thence, he now explains what occurred to produce a diversity 
of languages?" Secondly, it should not be translated, ** The peo- 
ple was of one speech," but, “had been of one speech:" and so 
indeed Tremellius most fittingly and correctly renders it, so as to 
remove all ambiguity; to which version the Hebrew text is no 
way repugnant.—The fifth reason is, because there are in the 
scriptures some phrases proper and peculiar to the Hebrew tongue, 
which are to us very hard to be understood, as Ps. Ixxxix. 29, 
“like the days of heaven;” as if there were day and night in 
heaven, or as if heaven lived by day and night like men. So Ps. 
exix. 108: “My soul is alway in my hand?." . I answer, that 
there are, indeed, in the Hebrew, as in other tongues, certain 
idioms and phrases proper and peculiar to that language; yet 
such nevertheless as to be readily intelligible to those who are 
practised in the scriptures, and such as express the meaning with a 
singular sort of emphasis and grace. For who is so dull as not to 
understand what such modes of speech as these denote? God spake 
by the hand of Jeremiah, or, The word of the Lord came by the 
hand of Zechariah, that is, by the ministry of that prophet. So, 


[! Sextam regulam Tichonius recapitulationem vocat.... Sie enim di- 
cuntur queedam, quasi sequantur in ordine temporis, vel rerum continuatione 
narrentur, quum ad priora quze preetermissa fuerant, latenter narratio revo- 
cetur.—Augustin. de Doctr. Christ. Lib. m1. c. 36. T. xr. p. 81.] 

[2 Cum ergo in suis linguis istee gentes fuisse referantur, redit tamen ad 
illud tempus narrator, quando una lingua omnium fuit; et inde jam exponit, 
quid acciderit, ut linguarum diversitas nasceretur. ] 

(3 This phrase, however, is not peculiar to the Hebrew. It occurs in a 
fragment of Xenarchus’ Pentathlus, preserved by Athenzeus, év xewpi mv 
Wuyxny €xovra, 9e0:óra.— Deipnos. Lib. xm. $ 24. p. 569. ed. Casaub. 


111. | QUESTION THE FOURTH. 379 


* His throne is like the days of heaven,” that is, shall endure per- 
petually like heaven itself: and, **my soul is in my hand,” that is, 
is exposed to every danger.—The sixth reason why the scriptures 
are obscure in their mode of expression is this, because there are 
many tropes, many figures and schemes of rhetoric in scripture, as 
metaphors, ironies, metonymies, inversions, and such like. I answer 
and say that scripture is not obscured, but illustrated, by these 
tropes and figures. For even the rhetoricians themselves teach, 
that tropes are to be employed for the purpose not of obscuring 
speech, but of lending to it ornament and light. Augustine, de 
Doctr. Christ. Lib. u. c. 6, writes thus upon this subject: ** No 
one doubts that things are more pleasantly understood by simili- 
tudes*" Chrysostom, upon Isaiah vii. [v. 7], treating of these 
words, “ Behold the Lord will bring upon them the waters of the 
river, strong and many, the king of the Assyrians,” &c., writes 
thus: * He hath in a metaphorical way used terms to express both 
the manners of a native prince and the power of a barbarian. 
This he does in order (as I have all along told you) to make his 
discourse more plain5." And a little after: ** Whenever scripture 
uses metaphors, it is wont to explain itself more clearly.” In the 
same way Thomas Aquinas, in the first part of Summ. Quest. 1. 
Artic. 9, respons. ad Arg. 2: ‘Whence those things that in one 
place are spoken under metaphors, are expressed more clearly 
elsewhere®.” Therefore, although the scriptures are rendered more 
obscure in some places by metaphors, yet those metaphors are 
elsewhere explained so as to leave no obscurity in the discourse or 
sentence. So much for Bellarmine’s third argument. 

His rourTH argument is taken from common experience, and 
stands thus: If the scriptures (says he) be not obscure, why have 
Luther himself and the Lutherans published so many commentaries 
upon the scriptures, and interpreted them so variously, that Osian- 
der asserts that there are twenty most different opinions upon 
justification subsisting amongst the Confessionists or Lutherans 
alone? I answer, first, that the multitude of commentaries was 
perhaps not very necessary, because the scriptures might have 
been understood without so many of them: although those who 


[* Nemo ambigit per similitudines libentius queeque cognosci.—T. 111. p. 28. ] 

[5 movet 8€ adrd, Ómep env del, rov Aóyov éusavtiKdrepoyv karaakevá(ov . . . 
javTaxov ev rais petadopais éavtiy éppugvevew elwbev 7) ypapy.—Opp. T. 1. p. 
1084. Eton. 1612.] 

[$ Unde ea que in uno loco sub metaphoris dicuntur, in aliis locis ex- 
pressius exponuntur.—Queest. 1. Art. ix. Resp. ad Arg. 2. p. 4. Par. 1639.] 


380 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cu. 


write learned and elaborate commentaries upon scripture deserve 
special gratitude from all students of scripture. Secondly, I say 
that commentaries were published in order that the scriptures might 
be better and more easily understood. Thirdly, I say that there 
is the utmost unanimity amongst the Confessionists (as they call 
them) in all things necessary, that is, in the articles of faith, and 
especially concerning justification; although perhaps there may be 
some dissension amongst them about smaller matters, as the ex- 
plication of some rather obscure place; which proves not the 
obscurity of scripture, but our slowness and inconstancy. Fourthly, 
it is little matter what Osiander, a man of the utmost levity and 
audacity, may have said; whose calumnious temper appears from 
his saying, that two methods of justification are collected by the 
confessionists from these words, * Abraham believed God, and it 
was imputed unto him for righteousness ;"—-one, of faith; the other, 
of imputation: as if, forsooth, being justified by faith and being 
justified by imputation were not absolutely the same thing. Cer- 
tainly there is no difference between these two. These, therefore, 
are not two different methods of justification; and the objection of 
variety of opinions in a matter of the utmost moment is not true. 
This calumny is mentioned by Hosius, in his third book against 
Brentius. So also Lindanus, in his Dubitantius, and Prateolus, in 
his Elenchus Hereticorum, Lib. 1x. c. 35. And so much of Bel- 
larmine’s fourth argument. 

Now follows his rirru and last argument, which is taken from 
the confession of protestants. Protestants themselves, says he, 
confess this same thing, that there are many obscurities in scripture; 
as Luther, Brentius, Chemnitz, and the centuriators. I answer: Now 
then they absolve us, and openly shew that they themselves are false 
and slanderous. What now hath the Jesuit gotten, when through this 
whole disputation of his he hath sought to prove and persuade us 
by many arguments of that which we concede of our own accord, 
and hath bestowed so much trouble upon refuting that which we, 
for our parts, never defended? When, therefore, they prove that 
the difficulty of understanding scripture is great, they dispute not 
against us, who confess that what they conclude from argument, 
is affirmed and determined by us already. What our adversaries 
ought to have proved was, either that all was obscure, or so few 
things plain in the scriptures, that the people ought not to meddle 
with them. 

Thus far then we have replied to the arguments of our ad- 
versaries. 


IV. | QUESTION THE FOURTH. 381 


CHAPTER IV. 


THE ARGUMENTS OF OUR WRITERS ATTACKED BY BELLARMINE ARE 
DEFENDED. 


Now follow the arguments upon our side. We shall use in this 
place those very arguments which Luther and Brentius formerly 
used against the papists, and to which our Jesuit endeavours to 
reply. They are nine in number, to which we will add three; and 
so this whole cause will be concluded in twelve arguments. 

We have explained the state of the question above, and have 
shewn what the papists and we hold respectively. Our opinion 
is, that the scriptures are not so difficult, but that those who read 
them attentively may receive from thence advantage and the 
greatest edification, even laymen, plebeians and the common mass 
of mankind. This we establish by the following arguments, whereof 
the First is taken from Deut. xxx. 11, where we read it thus written: 
* 'This commandment which I command thee this day is not hidden 
from thee, nor far from thee: It is not in heaven, that thou 
shouldest say, Who shall ascend for us into heaven, and take it for 
us, and tell it unto us that we may do it? Neither is it beyond 
the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall pass over for us beyond 
the sea, and take it for us, and tell it unto us that we may do it? 
But this word is very nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, 
that thou mayest do it.” From which words it is evident that the 
scriptures may be easily understood. The Jesuit alleges a two-fold 
answer. 

First, he says that the ancients interpret this place, not of 
the facility of understanding the commandments of God, but of 
the facility of fulfilling them; and he brings Tertullian, contra 
Marcion. Lib. 1v. Origen, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Comment. in 10 
Rom, as testimonies; and he says that thus this place makes 
against the Lutherans, who deny that the law of God can be ful- 
filled. I answer, first, that it belongs to our purpose now to 
dispute of the meaning of this place, and inquire how it is used by 
the apostle in the 10th chapter of the Romans. We have only to 
see whether it can be concluded from this place that the scripture 
is easy: which indeed is plain from the words themselves; first, 
because it says, that “the commandment is not hidden;” next, be- 
cause it says that there is no need that any one should “ascend 
into heaven and declare it unto us, or that we should pass over 
the sea," and seek it in foreign regions: whereby the sacred writer 


382 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


takes away the excuses which men are wont to make; and concludes 
that this word is near, in the mouth and in the heart: therefore, 
it was not unknown. Thus the meaning is, that the will of God : 
was so opened to them in the scriptures, that they could not be 
ignorant of it, or allege any excuse of ignorance. Secondly, if that 
be true which these fathers say, then that which we contend for 
must so much the rather be conceded. For if the commandments 
of God can be easily obeyed, then certainly they can more easily 
be understood. For it is much more easy to understand God's 
precepts than to fulfil them ; and one cannot possibly do that which 
he does not understand. But the true meaning of the place is, that 
the will of God is plainly revealed to us in the scriptures. Thirdly, 
the Lutherans truly deny that the law of God can be fulfilled by 
us: nor is it they only that deny this, but those very fathers also 
whom Bellarmine alleges, as shall appear afterwards when we come 
to that controversy. 

The Jesuit's second answer (for he distrusts the former one) 
is this, that those words are to be understood of the facility of 
understanding the decalogue only, not the whole scripture: for 
that the decalogue may be easily understood, since the precepts 
of the decalogue are natural laws, and those Jews could easily 
know them who had heard them explained by Moses. I answer: 
It is certain that Moses is there speaking of the whole will of 
God, which is declared in the whole of the word and scriptures, 
and so that this place relates to the entire scripture. For he care- 
fully exhorts the people to walk in all the ways of the Lord, and 
keep all his precepts, ceremonies and judgments. And, in order 
that these might be the better understood, the monuments of Scrip- 
ture are delivered by Moses, as we find in chap. xxxi. 9. But let 
us take what he gives. For, if he concede the Decalogue to be 
plain and clear, it will follow that the historic and prophetic books 
are still more easy; which are, for the most part, a sort of commen- 
tary upon the Decalogue, and contain in them a plainer and fuller 
exposition of its meaning. ‘The Decalogue is everywhere repeated, 
inculeated, explained in the other books of scripture. Now no one 
will say that the text is more easy than the commentary. But that 
Moses does not speak only of the Decalogue is clear from the pre- 
ceding verse, and from Augustine, Quest. 54 in Deut. and De Lyra 
upon the place, and Hieronymus ab Oleastro, a papist himself, who 
says, in his commentary on these words, that Moses speaks of “the 
whole law,” and then subjoins, “that we should be very grateful to 
God for making those things which are necessary to salvation easy, 


Iv. | QUESTION THE FOURTH. 383 
and reducing them to a small number :” and in what sense he calls 
them easy, he shews before, where he says, “that the command- 
ments of God are not difficult and hidden, but easy to be understood, 
said, and done.” There is no reason why I should make any larger 
defence or discourse upon our first argument. 

Our sEcoND argument is to this effect: In Ps. xix. 9, the word 
of God is called clear ; and Ps. exix. 105, it is called a lamp to our 
feet, and a light to our paths; and Proverbs vi. 22, Solomon says, 
«The commandment is a lamp, and the law is light." From these 
and similar places it is evident, that the word is not so obscure as 
to be unintelligible, but perspicuous and plain. The Jesuit’s answer 
to this argument is twofold. First, he says that this is to be un- 
derstood of the Lord's precepts, not of the whole scripture. I 
answer, this is manifestly false: for, in Ps. exix, the prophet David 
praises the whole word of God at great length, and prays of God 
that he may understand it all, not merely some part of it; and in 
Ps. xix, he speaks of those two things which manifest and declare 
God to us, and by which men attain to a knowledge of God, the 
creatures and the word of God, which latter is there described by 
him under many titles. For it is called the Law or Doctrine of 
the Lord, the Testimony of the Lord, the Statutes of the Lord, 
the Precepts of the Lord, the Fear of the Lord, by a metonymy, 
because it teaches the fear and reverence of the Lord; and this 
doctrine he declares to be sound and perfect, and to give wisdom 
to the simple. He therefore did not mean any part, but the whole 
scripture, the teacher of true and perfect wisdom. Genebrard, upon 
Ps. xvii, testifies that some interpret the place of the whole scrip- 
ture; nor is he speaking of our writers, but either of his own or of 
ancient ones. Indeed, Jerome is plainly of that opinion, and Lyra 
and many others, Now the third place is likewise to be understood 
of the whole doctrine of scripture, which the wise prophet calls a 
lamp and a light. Secondly, the Jesuit says, that, if these places 
be understood of the whole scripture, then the scripture is called 
clear and a lamp, not because it is easy to be understood, but 
because it illuminates men when it is understood. I answer, and 
affirm, that 1t is therefore called a lamp, because it hath in itself a 
light and brightness wherewith it illuminates others, unless they be 
absolutely blind, or. wilfully turn away their eyes from this light. 
A candle is not kindled that it should be set under a bushel, but 
that it should shine on all who are in the house. The same is the 
case of the word of God. Ambrose, in his fourteenth discourse 


384 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cnu. 


upon Ps. exviii, writes thus upon this subject: * Our mouth is fed 
by the word, when we speak the commandments of the word of 
God: our inward eye also is fed by the light of the spiritual lamp, 
which shines before us in the night of this world, lest, as walking in 
darkness, we should stumble with uncertain steps, and be unable to 
find the true way." And Augustine, Concio 23 in Ps. exviii. hath 
these words: * The saying, * Thy word is a lamp to my feet and 
a light to my paths,' denotes the word which is contained in all the 
holy scriptures?.” This entirely overturns the Jesuit’s first reply, 
wherein he determines that this place and others like it are not to 
be understood of the whole scripture, but only of the precepts of 
the Lord; for Augustine expressly expounds it of the whole 
scripture. The comparison, therefore, of scripture to a lamp is to 
be understood to mean that we are thereby illuminated, who by 
nature are plunged in utter darkness, and see and understand 
nothing of what is pleasing to God. <A lamp hath light in itself, 
whether men look upon that light or not: so also the scripture is 
clear and perspicuous, whether men be illuminated by it, or receive 
from it no light whatever. As to what Bellarmine says,—that the 
scripture gives light when understood,—it is most certain; for it 
can give no light otherwise. But we affirm that it may be under- 
stood by all who desire to know it, and bestow the pains they 
ought; even as a lamp may be seen by all who choose to open’ 
their eyes. Then the scripture is called lucid, not only because it 
hath light in itself, but because it illuminates us, dispels the 
darkness of our minds, and brings us new light, which is what no 
lamps can do. For a lamp is beheld by those who have eyes; but. 
to those who are blind no lamp shews light. But the scripture is 
so full of divine light as to dispel our blindness with its rays, and 
make us who before saw nothing in this light to see light. There- 
fore, Ps. exix. 130, it is said to illuminate, or bring light to babes. 

Our THIRD argument is taken from Matthew v. 14, where Christ 
thus addresses his apostles: “Ye are the light of the world." 
Therefore, the apostolic doctrine, and consequently the scripture, 


{1 Pascitur enim os nostrum verbo, cum loquimur mandata Dei verbi. 
Pascitur et oculus noster interior lucerne spiritalis lumine, que nobis in hac 
mundi nocte preelucet: ne sicut in tenebris ambulantes, incertis titubemus 
vestigiis, et viam veram invenire nequeamus.— 3$ 5. T. Iv. p. 288, ed. Caillau. 
Paris. 1836.] 

[2 Quod ait, Lucerna, etc. . ... verbum est quod scripturis sanctis om- 
nibus continetur.— Opp. T. vr. p. 705.] 


Iv. | QUESTION THE FOURTH, 





hath light in itself. So Brentius argues against Soto, and not ill. > 
The Jesuit answers first, that this is not spoken of the ligh&*of- - 
doctrine or of the scriptures, but is to be understood of the light of 
example and probity of life; and that therefore there is subjoined a 
little after, * Let your light so shine before men that they may see 
your good works," &c. I answer, and confess that these words 
may be understood of the light of conduct: but I say besides, that 
they ought to be understood also of the light of doctrine. And this 

is manifest from the circumstance that the apostles are, in the same 
place, compared to salt, in respect of their doctrine and preaching. 

As the doctrine of the apostles was the salt of the world, so was it 
also the light of the world. And whereas the Jesuit objects the en- 
suing words, ‘ Let your light so shine,” &c., I say that those words 
also ought principally to be understood of the light of doctrine, 
inasmuch as doctrine is the principal work and fruit of an apostle. 
And so indeed by the fruit of heretics or false apostles, Matth. vii. 
20, their false doctrine and heretical preaching is signified. And in 
this manner some of the fathers also expound this place. 

Secondly, the Jesuit admits that these words may also be un- 
derstood of the preaching and doctrine of the apostles, but that this 
is there called light, as he before observed that the word was called 
a lamp, not because it is easily understood, but because, when un- 
derstood, it illuminates the mind and instructs us upon the sublimest 
subjects. I answer, that nothing can be more futile than this reply. 
As if forsooth the sun had no light in itself, unless blind men could 
see it. For scripture in this matter is like the sun, because it 
illuminates with that light which it hath in itself all but those who 
are either blind, or do not choose to turn their eyes towards it. 
Hosius, however, gives another answer, in his 3rd book against the 
Prolegomena of Brentius*, namely, that the preaching of the 
apostles was plain and luminous, but that the scripture is not 
equally plain; that they preached plainly, but that their writings 
are more obscure. And he uses a comparison to illustrate this: 
for the orations of Demosthenes now written are much more 
difficult to be understood than when they were delivered, because 
many things in them are not now apparent which were then 
manifest; so as that it may be truly said that a great part of 
Demosthenes is lacking in the orations of Demosthenes: and the 
case is the same, he says, with the apostolic writings. Now, as to 
the solution of this argument, I wish to know, in the first place, 

[? Opp. Lugd. 1563. p. 550.] 


[ WHITAKER. | E 


386 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cu. 


why the Jesuit, who doubtless had it before him, did not choose to 
make use of it? It is probable that the cardinal’s reply seemed 
weak to that acute polemic, and that he therefore chose to go in 
quest of another. However, I answer thus: although the living 
voice of the apostles, when they preached, had more force in it to 
move the passions of men; nevertheless, in regard of the sum of 
evangelic doctrine, the same facility and perspicuity appears in 
their writings. For if “the word of prophecy” be like a lamp, 
that is, clear and plain, as Peter expressly affirms, 2 Pet. i. 19, 
(where he understands the writings, not the preaching of the pro- 
phets, as we shall afterwards prove,) then certainly the apostolic 
word must needs be still clearer and more illustrious. And hence 
springs our next argument. 

For thus we reason in the rounTrH place: It is written, 2 Pet. 
i. 19, * We have a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well 
that ye take heed, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the 
day dawn and the day-spring arise in your hearts.” The prophetic 
scripture is like a lamp shining in a dark place; therefore, it is 
illustrious and clear. The Jesuit applies precisely the same answer 
which he used before, namely, that the words of the prophets are 
compared to a lamp, not because they are clear and plain and easy 
to be understood; but because then, when they are understood, 
they give us light and shew us the way to Christ, who is the sun 
of righteousness. I answer: it is nevertheless certain that scripture 
is compared to a lamp, because it hath light and clearness in it, 
which it also shews to men, unless they are either blind or turn 
away their eyes from it, as was said before. For as the sun is 
obscure to no one, nor a lamp when lit and set in the midst, save 
to the blind and those who shut their eyes; so also is the scripture. 
Here also the Jesuit hath departed from Hosius' answer, and made 
use of another almost contrary to it, and far more futile. The 
prophetie word illuminates us, and leads to Christ, the sun of right- 
eousness, and is therefore called a lamp: as if one used to kindle 
a lamp in order to look upon the sun. — Hosius says that it is called 
a lamp, because there are many things in it clear, and because 
what were formerly shadows and enigmas are now declared by the 
gospel What else is this but what we maintain, that there are 
many things in scripture so clear that any one may understand 
them? Although, indeed, the apostle said that the scripture was 
like a lamp, even then when those shadows were not entirely dis- 
pelled; for he mentions the prophetic word. The cunning Jesuit 


Iv. | QUESTION THE FOURTH. 387 


saw that our cause was confirmed by this answer: and therefore he 
devised another, that it is called a lamp because it illuminates if it 
be understood ; although it be plain that it is called a lamp because 
it shines brightly and speaks perspicuously, so as to be capable of 
being easily seen and understood: as if he were to say, it is not a 
lamp, unless you see it shining; whereas it is a lamp, and shines, 
whether you see it or will not see it. The apostle says that it 
shines in a@ dark place: therefore it dispels the shades. So the 
scripture dispels the darkness from our mind, by propounding a 
clear and luminous doctrine, which refutes our errors and shews to 
us the certain paths of truth, 

Our FIFTH argument is taken from the words of the apostle, 
2 Cor. iv. 3, which are these: * If our gospel be hid, it is hid to 
them that are lost." Therefore the gospel is plain and manifest, 
and, consequently, also the evangelic scripture, save only to those 
who, with a blind impulse, rush headlong upon their own destruc- 
tion. The Jesuit answers, that Paul in that place speaks not of 
the knowledge and understanding of scripture, but of the knowledge 
of Christ; and he says that this book was closed to the people of 
old, but is open to us. I answer, and say in the first place, that it 
is evident from the second verse of the same chapter, that Paul 
speaks of the knowledge of scripture, and therefore of the whole 
doctrine of the gospel. For he says that he delivered to the 
Corinthians the gospel most sincerely, without any deceit or false 
colouring, ux Sodovvres Tov Aoryov ToU Oeov, and then presently 
follow these words: “If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that 
are lost ;" as if he had said, our doctrine and preaching was so full 
and clear that none can fail to understand it, but those who choose 
to perish and have minds averse to God. Besides, if he confess 
that the knowledge of Christ is manifest in the scriptures, we desire 
no more: for this is as much as we require or contend for, that all 
things necessary to salvation may be easily known from scripture. 
For if we openly and easily know Christ from the scriptures, we 
certainly understand from the scriptures all things necessary to 
salvation. These men concede that Christ is openly set forth in 
the scriptures: from which admission we shall easily prove that the 
scriptures should be diligently read to the people, that they may 
understand Christ from the scriptures; since they who have ob- 
tained him, and learned him aright, want nothing for eternal salva- 
tion. The fathers also interpret this place of the perspicuity of the 
doctrine itself. Chrysostom, in his 8th Homily upon these words, 

25—2 


388 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cu. 


says, that the apostles had nothing dark, ovveokiac uévov, either in 
their life, or in their doctrine and preaching, ev TQ knpvypari. 
Ambrose also understands these words of the whole gospel delivered 
by the apostles. So also CEcumenius; for he observes, that it is 
as much as if the apostle had said : The fact that many believe not 
comes not from our fault, or from the obscurity of the gospel, but 
from this, that they are reprobate and unfaithful. Ovy »ucv 
eyKAnua i) acadeías TOU evayyeAlov, aXXa THS éketrcv amAeias 
kal TupAwcews. Theophylact also says upon this place, that the 
light and brilliancy of the gospel is such as to dazzle the eyes of 
the impious!. Thomas Aquinas upon these words says, that the 
cause why many understand it not is not in the gospel, but in the 
malice and incredulity of men. Likewise also Cajetan and Catha- 
rinus and other papists. Thus the confession of our adversaries 
confirms our cause, that the evangelic scripture and doctrine is 
clear in itself, obscure or unknown to none but those who are not 
of the number of the faithful. Therefore the whole cause of ob- 
scurity or ignorance is not the difficulty of the things, but the 
blindness and incredulity of men. 

Our sIxTH argument is as follows: The sum of the whole scrip- 
ture, which consists in the precepts of the Decalogue, the Creed, the 
Lord’s prayer and the sacraments, hath clear testimonies in the 
scriptures: therefore the scriptures are clear. The Jesuit puts in 
this conclusion,—therefore the whole scripture is manifest; and 
denies the consequence. I reply, if by the whole scripture he un- 
derstands every several passage of scripture, we frame no such 
argument; but if by the whole scripture he means the sum of 
doctrine necessary for any man’s salvation, then we acknowledge 
the argument, and say that the whole is clear. As to what he sub- 
joins,—that, if the articles of faith were clear in scripture, then there 
would not be so many controversies about them, and hence collects 
that there are not such luminous testimonies to them in scripture ; 
I answer, that this is weak reasoning; because on these grounds 
the scriptures would have nothing whatever certain, plain, or 
evident. For there is nothing in scripture so plain that some men 
have not doubted it; as, that God is Almighty, that he created 
heaven and earth, that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, con- 
ceived of the Holy Ghost, and so forth: these are indeed plainly 
and openly set down in scripture, and yet there are controversies 

[1 domep et tis dpOarpidvra Twa dmokAe(oew ToU p!) Tas akTivas ToU HALoU 
iüetv, iva pr) kai zpooBXafeín.—p. 355. Lond. 1636.] 


IV. | QUESTION THE FOURTH. 389 


about them. Things therefore are not presently obscure, concern- 
ing which there are many controversies; because these so mani- 
fold disputes arise rather from the perversity and curiosity of the 
human mind, than from any real obscurity. The apostle says that 
the minds of infidels are blinded by the devil, lest they should see 
that brilliant light and acquiesce in it: which is most true of our 
adversaries. 

Our sEVENTH argument stands thus: There is this difference 
between the new and the old Testaments, that the old Testament 
is like a book closed and sealed, as we find in Isaiah xxix. 11, but 
the new Testament is like a book opened, as we read, Revel. v. 
We do not use this argument to prove that the whole scripture 
was obscure and unknown to the old Jewish people, but to shew that 
the knowledge of Christians is now much clearer than was formerly 
that of the Jews. The Jesuit answers by saying that this is true, 
not of the whole scripture, but only of the mysteries of our re- 
demption which is wrought by Christ. I answer, if he confess that 
the scripture is like a book opened, so far as the mysteries of our 
redemption are concerned, there is certainly no more that we 
need to demand : for from this admission it will follow immediately 
that all things necessary to salvation are plain in the scriptures; 
which is the foundation of our defence. Surely he was overcome 
and constrained by the force of truth to publish this open and in- 
genuous confession. But now, if the mysteries of our redemption 
are clear in the scriptures, why should it not be lawful for the 
people to read the scriptures and have them constantly in their 
hands, so as to recognise the goodness of Christ, and understand 
the plan of their redemption and salvation? Jerome, in his Com- 
mentary upon Ezekiel xl. writes thus upon this subject: ‘ Before 
the Saviour assumed a human body, and humbled himself to receive 
the form of a servant, the law and the prophets and the whole 
knowledge of scripture was closed up, Paradise was shut up. But 
after that he hung upon the cross, and said to the thief, ‘To-day 
shalt thou be with me in Paradise,’ immediately the vail of the 
temple was rent, and all things were set open; and, the covering 
being removed, we can say, ‘We all with open face beholding the 
glory of the Lord are changed into the same image from glory to 
glory'2,^ As to what the same Jerome writes elsewhere (namely, 


[? Priusquam Salvator humanum corpus assumeret, et humiliaret se for- 
mam servi accipiens, clausa erat Lex et Prophetze, et omnis scientia scriptu- 
rarum, clausus erat Paradisus, Postquam autem ille pependit in cruce, et 


390 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


in his Epist. 13, de Instit. Monach. to Paulinus), that a vail is placed 
not upon the face of Moses only, but of the apostles and evangelists 
also; he speaks there of the difficulty of believing without the Holy 
Spirit, but not of the difficulty of understanding, as is plain from 
that same place. Let it suffice to have said so much upon our 
seventh argument. 

Our EIGHTH argument is to this effect: The fathers proved their 
opinions out of the scriptures. Therefore the scriptures are clearer 
than the writings and commentaries of the fathers : for no one proves 
what is unknown by what is still more unknown. Luther hath this 
argument in the Preface of his Articles condemned by Leo X. The 
Jesuit answers, that the scriptures are indeed, in respect of their 
truth, clearer and more open than the writings of the fathers, but 
not in respect of the words. Which surely is a foolish answer: for 
to say that the scriptures are clearer than the fathers in respect of 
their truth, is nothing more than saying that they are truer. But 
what sort of a distinction is this? If the truth of scripture be 
clearer, how can the words be more obscure? For it is from the 
words that the truth arises. If therefore he confess that the scrip- 
tures are plainer than the commentaries of the fathers, in respect 
of their truth, then he concedes that the truth is plainer in the 
scriptures than in the writings of any father; which is sufficient. 
And doubtless if we will compare the scripture with the writings of 
the fathers, we shall generally find greater obscurity and difficulty 
in the latter than in the former. There is no less perspicuity in 
the Gospel of John or in the Epistles of Paul, than in Tertullian, 
in Irenzus, in certain books of Origen and Jerome, and in some 
other writings of the fathers. But in all the schoolmen there is such 
obscurity as is nowhere found in scripture. ‘The words of serip- 
ture," says he, * are more obscure than the words of the fathers." 
Even if there were some obscurity in the words of scripture greater 
than in those of the fathers, it would not nevertheless be a just 
consequence, that the scriptures were so obscure that they should 
not be read by the people. This should rather rouse men to an 
attentive reading than deter them from reading altogether. Besides, 
the scriptures speak of necessary things no less plainly than any 
fathers, or even much more plainly, because the Holy Spirit excels 
in all powers of expression. Where has Augustine or Chrysostom, 
locutus est ad latronem, Hodie mecum eris in Paradiso, statim velum templi 
scissum est, et aperta sunt omnia, ablatoque velamine dicimus, Nos omnes 


revelata facie gloriam Dei contemplantes in eandem imaginem transforma- 
mur, à gloria in gloriam.—Opp. T. v. p. 536.] 


Iv. | QUESTION THE FOURTH. 391 


or any father, written more plainly that Christ hath delivered men 
from their sins and from eternal punishment, than the evangelists, 
than Paul, than Peter, than the rest of those whose ministry the 
Holy Ghost hath used in writing the scriptures? Surely all neces- 
sary things are so plainly set forth in the scripture, that he who 
does not understand them in scripture will never be instructed by 
any commentaries of the fathers. 

Now follows our NINTH argument, which is this: Formerly, in 
the earliest times of the church, there were no commentaries upon 
the scriptures extant, but the fathers read them without commen- 
taries; and yet, even then, the scriptures were understood: there- 
fore they are plain and easy in themselves. This is also an 
argument of Luther's. The Jesuit answers, that the first fathers 
consulted the apostles themselves, and learned from them the sense 
of scripture, and afterwards wrote commentaries. And he shews 
out of Jerome, that commentaries on the Apocalypse were pub- 
lished from the very first by Justin Martyr and Ireneus. I an- 
swer: It is certain that there was a time when the church both 
read and understood the scriptures without commentaries. For 
they can produce none before Origen, who published any commen- 
taries upon the scriptures; and he lived two hundred years after 
Christ. Therefore the church was all that time without commen- 
taries. As to his objection from Jerome’s catalogue, article Jo- 
HANNES!, that Justin and Irenseus wrote commentaries on the 
Apocalypse, the statement is untrue. For Jerome does not affirm 
this, but only says that they interpreted the Apocalypse. Perhaps, 
therefore, they expounded some obscure places in the Apocalypse ; 
but how correctly, appears from the circumstance of their establish- 
ing the error of the Chiliasts by the authority of this book. But 
let us grant them to have written something upon this book: will it 
therefore follow that they published commentaries upon the whole 
scripture? By no means. Certainly the Apocalypse is a small 
book compared with the whole of scripture. Besides, the Jews 
before Christ had no commentaries on the prophets, and yet they 
understood them. The scriptures, therefore, are not so obscure as 
the papists wish them to appear. We confess, indeed, that we owe 
a deep debt of gratitude to those who have written learned com- 
mentaries, because by their means we understand scripture with 
increased facility; but yet that the scriptures may be understood 
without them, is clear from the fact that they were understood 


[! Scripsit Apocalypsim, quam interpretantur Justinus Martyr et Irenzus.] 


392 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cu. 


before any commentaries were published: and if at the present day 
no commentaries remained, the scriptures would nevertheless be 
understood. 

These are the arguments of Luther and Brentius. We will 
now add three arguments of our own: whereof the first, which 
shall count as the TENTH, is this: If the scriptures be so obscure 
and difficult to be understood, that they cannot be read with ad- 
vantage by the people, then this hath happened, either because the 
Holy Spirit could not write more plainly, or because he would not. 
No one will say that he could not: and that he would not, is 

repugnant to the end of writing; because God willed that they 
- should be written and committed to letters for the very end, that 
we should learn what was written, and thence derive a knowledge 
of his will; as is plain from Rom. xv. 4, * Whatsoever things were 
written, were written for our learning:" where Paul speaks not 
only of the learned, but of the whole multitude of the faithful. 
The scriptures, therefore, are clear. Besides, God does not mock 
us when he bids us read the scriptures; but he would have us read 
the scriptures in order that we may know and understand them. 
Again, the scripture is called a rule, a standard, a mark, laid open 
to the eyes of all: it is, therefore, of necessity easy and clear. Thus 
then we briefly conclude this argument. The Holy Spirit willed 
the scriptures to be consigned to writing in order that we might 
understand them; and that this was the end which he proposed 
there are many things in the scriptures themselves that testify: 
therefore, they are so written as to be intelligible by us, or else the 
Holy Spirit hath not gained his end; which cannot be thought 
without impiety. 

Our ELEVENTH argument is on this wise. There are two classes 
of men, —the faithful, and the infidels. To infidels everything is 
obscure; for they understand nothing aright, but are involved in the 
thickest darkness. But the faithful understand every thing, the 
not understanding of which would involve the loss of true salvation : 
they are ignorant of nothing necessary to salvation. So Christ, 
John x. 27, * My sheep hear my voice;" that is, they understand 
it. So Jeremiah xxxi. 34, * All shall know the Lord, from the 
least to the greatest." So Christ says to his disciples, Luke viii. 
10, * To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of 
God," &e. So Paul, 1 Cor. ii, last verse, **We have the mind of 
Christ." The faithful, therefore, understand, acknowledge, approve 
the scriptures. And the scriptures are such in themselves as by 


IV. | QUESTION THE FOURTH. 393 


their own light to turn the eyes of all towards them, and cause 
themselves not only to be understood, but also to be received with 
faith. For they not only have light in themselves, but they illu- 
minate others also with their light. So the Apostle, 2 Cor. iv. 6, 
attributes not only as [light], but @wticpos [illumination] also 
to the scripture. So great, then, is the brightness of scripture, 
that it opens even the eyes of us who are blind by nature, and re- 
stores clear sight to us. 

There remains now our LAST argument, which is founded in 
human testimonies, that is, those of the fathers; which, although it 
have no great force in itself, must yet be of great avail against our 
adversaries, who studiously affect such arguments in every question. 
First, Augustine upon Psal. viii. says: “God hath made the scrip- 
tures stoop to the capacity of babes and sucklings!”’ And, de Doctr. 
Christ. Lib. 11. c. 6, he writes thus: * The Holy Spirit hath so 
modified the scriptures, combining ornament with utility, as to 
provide for our hunger in the easier places, and prevent satiety by 
the more obscure. For scarce anything can be gotten out of those 
obscurities which may not be found spoken elsewhere with the 
utmost plainness?." The Jesuit says that it is not for nothing that 
Augustine added here the qualification fere; because, says he, 
there are many things obscurely propounded in scripture, which are 
nowhere explained in other places. I answer: Though I should 
concede this, yet are these things such as may be unknown without 
loss or danger of losing salvation. Meanwhile he gives no answer 
to Augustine, who says in express words, that the Holy Spirit hath 
provided for our hunger in the plainer places; that is, that we can 
draw and obtain from the open places of scripture what suffices to 
dispel our hunger. But that hunger is not removed before we 
thoroughly understand the things necessarily. required for our sal- 
vation. The same Augustine also, in his discourse of Blasphemy 
against the Holy Spirit, says that “we are fed in the plain places of 
scripture, and exercised in the obscure ones." Precisely to the same 
effect, Tract. 44. in Johan.: * He feeds us with the clear, and ex- 
ercises us with the hidden?." Therefore those things which can feed 

[! Inclinavit ergo scripturas Deus ad infantium et lactentium capacita- 
tem.—T. v. p. 54.] 

[2 Magnifice et salubriter Spiritus Sanctus ita scripturas modificavit, ut 
locis apertioribus fami occurreret, obscurioribus autem fastidia detergeret. 
Nihil enim fere de illis obscuritatibus eruitur, quod non planissime dictum 
alibi reperiatur.—T. m1. p. 28.] 

[3 Pascit manifestis, exercet occultis. ] 


394 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


us to life and salvation are set down plainly in the scriptures; and 
those which are not so plain are yet not such as to be unintelligible, 
but to require greater diligence and industry. And, de Doctr. 
Christ. Lib. rr. c. 9, he writes thus: ** Amongst those things which 
are clearly set down in scripture, are found all those which make 
the sum of faith and practice, that is to say, hope and charity.” 
Wherein we may observe four things. First, what things are 
necessary to salvation,—namely, a right faith and a pious life. 
Secondly, whence these may be learned,—namely, from the scrip- 
tures. Thirdly, If we ask whether all things requisite for these 
two may be learned from the scripture, or only some? Augustine 
answers, that all things necessary both for a right faith and pious 
life are delivered in scripture. Fourthly, If we ask, whether they 
are set down plainly or obscurely in scripture? Augustine answers, 
Plainly. What could possibly be more clearly expressed ? 

The same author, in his piece de Peccat. meritis et remissione, 
Lib. 11. c. 36, discoursing of the generation of the soul and of other 
sublime and difficult matters, observes: ** Although I could not tell 
concerning any of these how it could be demonstrated or explained, 
yet I believe that here also the authority of the divine oracles 
would be most clear, if a man could not be ignorant of them 
without the loss of promised salvation?" Where he declares that 
he does not doubt but that those points, which cannot be unknown 
without the loss of salvation, may be proved by the clearest 
authority of scripture. So constant is he to his principle, that all 
things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in scripture. So 
also in his Book de Utilitate credendi, e. 6, he writes thus of this 
matter: “Trust me, what is in those scriptures is lofty and divine. 
There is in them certainly truth, and instruction most suited to 
refresh and restore the soul, and so modified as that no one shall be 
unable to draw thence enough for himself, if he only approach to 
draw with piety and devotion, as true religion demands?." If there 


[2 Vide supra. ] 

[2 Etsi enim quodlibet horum, quemadmodum demonstrari et explicari 
possit, ignorem, illud tamen credo, quod etiam hine divinorum eloquiorum 
clarissima auctoritas esset, si homo illud sine dispendio promisse salutis igno- 
rare non posset.—Opp. T. xri. p. 88.] 

[3 Quidquid est (mihi erede) in scripturis istis, altum et divinum est. 
Inest omnino veritas, et reficiendis instaurandisque animis accommodatissima 
disciplina, et plane ita modificata, ut nemo inde haurire non possit quod sibi 
satis est, si modo ad hauriendum devote ac pie, ut vera religio poscit, ac- 
cedat.—T. x. p. 63.] 


IV. | QUESTION THE FOURTH. 395 


be no one who cannot draw what is sufficient for him from the 
scriptures, they are certainly impious who pluck and steal them 
away from the people under the pretext of their being obscure and 
difficult. Why do they not permit men to draw their salvation from 
the scriptures, but because they are enemies to men’s salvation ? 
And, in his fifth Book against Julian the Pelagian, e. 1, he blames 
that heretic for exaggerating the difficulty of the scriptures, and 
saying that they were only suitable for the learned*: which Thesis 
when our adversaries maintain, they resemble the heretical more 
than the catholic doctors. Let these testimonies suffice from 
Augustine. | 

We bring forward Chrysostom in the second place, who hath 
clear testimonies in our favour. He, in his third Homily upon 
Lazarus, compares the apostles with the philosophers, and says 
that the philosophers wrote obscurely, but the prophets and apostles 
so plainly, that any one may learn and understand them by them- 
selves. His words are these: ** What then, they say, if we do not 
understand what is contained in books? Yet by all means, although 
thou understandest not what is hidden there, yet great sanctity is 
gained by the very perusal of it. Although indeed it is impossible 
that you should be equally ignorant of all. The grace of the 
Spirit hath so disposed and arranged them, that publicans, fisher- 
men, tent-makers, pastors and apostles, the ignorant and illiterate, 
may be saved by these books, lest any of the uninstructed should 
fly to this excuse of difficulty ; that the things spoken might be 
easily discerned by all; that the craftsman, and the servant, and 
the widow, and the most unlearned of men, might gain some benefit 
and advantage from hearing them read*." 

Then he subjoins the comparison of the philosophers with the 
prophets and apostles. ‘For not, like the Gentiles, for vain glory, 
but for the salvation of their hearers, did they whom God from the 
beginning deemed worthy of the grace of the Holy Spirit, com- 
pose all their works. The philosophers indeed, who are strangers 
to God, the masters of speech, the orators and writers of books, 
seeking not the common good, but aiming only at gaining admira- 
tion for themselves, even when they said something useful, yet 
even this an obscurity which they ever affected involved as in a 
certain cloud of wisdom. But the apostles and prophets took the 


[4 Exaggeras quam sit difficilis paucisque conveniens eruditis sanctarum 
cognitio literarum.—Opp. Anti-Pelag. T. rr. p. 241. Lovan. 1648.] 
(5 Tom. 1. pp. 737. 740. Paris. 1718. 38.] 


396 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cu. 


contrary way, and exposed to all the clear and open declarations 
which they made, as the common teachers of the world, so as that 
every one, by the mere perusal, might be enabled to understand 
what was said.” Thus Chrysostom. The Jesuit endeavours to 
break the force of this testimony, and maintains that Chrysostom 
said this in order to rouse many from their lethargy, and excite 
them to read the scriptures, who could, if they chose, read them 
with benefit and advantage. Where he confesses that many can 
read the scriptures with advantage; which is sufficient: for these 
many are not only learned, but unlearned also; since it is plain 
enough that Chrysostom speaks not merely of the learned, but 
of the unlearned also: otherwise his comparison would be utterly 
inept and improper, because even the philosophers themselves were 
intelligible to the learned. Chrysostom says that the scriptures are 
plainer than the books of the philosophers; therefore, the scriptures 
may be read with benefit even by the unlearned. As to what 
Chrysostom advises in the same place,—that we should go fre- 
quently over the obscure passages, and, if we cannot even so 
understand what is said, then repair to some learned men and 
consult them,—this we also willingly concede, and earnestly ap- 
prove, and consider ourselves very fortunate if by any means, after 
frequent reading and long meditation, we can obtain a knowledge of 
those matters. However, the same father elsewhere asserts that all 
things necessary to salvation are plain and manifest in the scrip- 
tures; for thus he writes in his 3rd Homily upon 2 Thessalonians : 
‘All things are clear and plain in the divine scriptures'.” And 
because this might seem a paradox, he afterwards explains himself 
by saying, wavta ra ava'ykaia, “all necessary things are clear 
and plain;" so that we have no need of homilies and sermons, ex- 
cept cra cv pabupiav nudv, that is, on account of our own sloth 
and negligence. And he removes that objection which the people are 
wont to make: “ But, you will say, I know not what is set down in 
the divine scriptures. But why? Are they in Hebrew, or Latin, or 
any foreign language ? Are they not spoken in Greek ? Yes, you 
say, but obscurely. Tell me, I beseech you, what is that obscu- 
rity?” The Jesuit answers, that he is speaking only of the histo- 
rical books; which is false: for he says of all things necessary 
to salvation, wavta onda, cap, evOea, “they are all manifest, 


(| Ilavra caQfj kai evOéa rà mapa rais Oeiats ypadais: mávra rà dvaykaia 


05Aa.—T. xr. p. 528.] 


IV. | QUESTION THE FOURTH. 397 


clear, easy,” which are contained not only in the historical, but also 
in the other books and parts of scriptures. The same father writes 
thus in the Prologue to the epistle to the Romans: “ Wherefore, if 
ye also will resolve to bestow a studious and diligent perusal upon 
this piece, there will be nothing more required by you, ovcevos 
érépov denceoOe, for true is the word of Christ, who says, ‘Seek 
and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened to you’.” 

And, whereas some suppose the reading of the scriptures to be per- 
nicious to the people, Chrysostom in the same place removes this scruple 
also, and says that this knowledge is highly necessary for all, and 
removes infinite evils; but that ignorance of the scriptures is the 
mother of all errors and heresies. For thus he writes: evrev9ev va 
pupia eu kakd, aro Gv ypapev ayvoias. ‘ Hence have sprung 
infinite evils, that is, from very ignorance of the sacred scriptures ; 
hence hath grown the prevailing pest of heresies; hence in many 
the neglect of life, hence useless and unprofitable labours. For even 
as those who are deprived of the use of the light of this world 
can never go straight; so they who do not turn their eyes to the 
rays of the scriptures of God, do of necessity run frequently into 
many errors, just as if they walked in darkness replete with perils.” 
The same author, in his first Homily upon John, writes thus: 
* ''herefore he (John) covered not his doctrine in mist and darkness, 
as they (the philosophers) shrouded their perverse opinions in obscu- 
rity as in a vai. But his doctrine is clearer and more lucid than 
the rays of the sun, and therefore propagated to all men." And, 
in his first Homily upon Matthew, he says, that ** the scriptures are 
easily intelligible and plain even to the slave, the rustic, the widow, 
the child, and the man of weakest intellect." What class of men, 
therefore, is there to whom the scriptures are so difficult as our ad- 
versaries slanderously pretend. Slaves, rusties, women, boys, and 
people of the meanest understanding, may be engaged with ad- 
vantage in the perusal of them. Therefore the scriptures have 
great perspicuity and facility, and should not be taken away from 
the people on the pretext of their obscurity. 

Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, when 
employed in proving the Deity of Christ, thus addresses those with 
whom he held the conference: ** Attend to those things which I 
shall quote from the sacred scriptures, and which are such as to 
need merely a hearing, and not any exposition?" Where he says 
that the scriptures are so easy that he who hears them merely, im- 

[? Pag. 274, x. Paris. 1636.] 


398 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. lou. 


mediately understands them. For the Greek words shew that this 
is affirmed of the scriptures themselves, not merely of those matters 
which he mentioned out of the scriptures: mpooéyete ois péAXw 
avauuuwiakew a0 TOV aryiwy *ypadav, ovóé e&nrynOjva Qeouévov, 
aXXa wovov axovoOyva. — lrensus, Lib. m. 15, affirms the doc- 
trine of the apostles to be “manifest and firm, keeping nothing 
back'." Thus it is both perspicuous and perfect. Clemens Alex- 
andrinus, in his tporpertixos Xoryos, or exhortation to the Gentiles, 
writes thus: * Hear ye that are far off, hear also ye that are nigh. 
The word is concealed from none; the light is common, it beams 
on all men; there is nothing Cimmerian in the word. Let us haste 
to salvation, to regeneration®.” Jerome, in his Commentary upon 
Psalm Ixxxvi., compares the apostles and prophets with the philoso- 
phers, as Chrysostom did above, and says that Plato wrote for few, 
because scarcely three men understood him; but the apostles and 
prophets, whom he there calls the princes of the church and the 
princes of Christ, ** wrote not for a few, but for the whole people, 
that all might understand." Ambrose, in his seventh epistle, at the 
beginning, says that Paul so explains himself in most of his dis- 
courses, that he who treats of him finds nothing to add; * and, if he 
would say something, must discharge the office of a grammarian 
rather than of a reasoner?." 

Basil, in his shorter definitions, Qusest. 45, where he handles 
the question,—If a man, having heard the Lord (who had said, 
** The servant that knew his Lord's will and did it not, neither pre- 
pared himself to do his will, shall be beaten with many stripes; but 
he who knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten 
with few stripes,") should on that account studiously neglect the 
knowledge of the divine will, hath he any comfort ?— declares it evi- 
dent, that he who is such, falsely pretends ignorance, and inevitably 
incurs judgment for his sin. For, saith the Lord, “if I had not 
come among them and spoken to them, they had not had sin; but 
now they have no cloak for their sin.” Then he subjoins what makes 


[! Igitur testificatio ejus [Luce] vera, et doctrina Apostolorum manifesta 
et firma, et nihil subtrahens.—Pag. 273, ». Paris. 1675.] 

[2 'Akobcare otv oí pakpàv, dkovcare oi éyyós: otk ámekpv(fi rwüàs 6 Aóyos: 
pas eort kowóv, émiAdyme: macw avOpdrois: ovdeis Kippépios ev Ady@.  omev- 
copev els gwrnplav, emi vij» Tadtyyeveoiav.—p. 56, n. Paris. 1629. ] 

[* In plerisque ita se ipse suis exponit sermonibus, ut is qui tractat nihil 
inveniat quod adjiciat suum ; ac si velit aliquid dicere, grammatici magis quam 
disputatoris fungatur munere. —Ep. 37. (class. 1.) T. virt. p. 448. Paris. 1839.] 


|av.] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 399 


for us in this controversy: THs aryias *ypadjs vavraxoU vct TO 
OérAnua ToU OcoU QurycyeXXovo s^. — ** The sacred scripture every 
where declares to us the will of God. "Therefore he who is such will 
not be condemned with a lesser judgment along with those who 
are in ignorance, but with a severer, with those of whom it is 
written, ‘They are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ears, lest 
she should hear the voice of the charmers and the enchanter, while 
she is skilfully charmed by him’.” The same author, in the begin- 
ning of his Commentary upon the Psalms, observes: *'From scrip- 
ture, as from a common repository of drugs to heal our souls, ev 
kowdg Tav uyev tarpeip, every man may choose a remedy suited 
to his complaint, each may be his own physician." Epiphanius, 
Heres. 69, says: “All things are clear and full of light in the 
divine scripture’,” &c. And Her. 76, *' All things are clear in 
the divine scriptures to those who will approach with pious reason- 
ing to the divine word :" «avra cad; ev T5 Oeia vypads Tots 
[BovXouévows evoeBet Aoyton@ TpotepxecOa TH Üclp Xoryo?. 

Cyril of Alexandria, in his seventh Book against Julian, an- 
swering an objection from the simplicity of the scriptures, says 
that they were so written purposely, in order that they might be 
known and understood by every one. His words are these: “But 
some one will say, that the divine scripture hath a style and 
diction common to all, vulgar and trite; whereas the things of the 
Greeks are expressed elegantly, and abound in grace and eloquence. 
We say, therefore, that the prophetical and Mosaic books are 
expressed in the Hebrew language; and, in order that they 
might be known to all, small and great, are usefully committed to a 
familiar diction, so as to transcend no man’s capacity"." The same 
father also, in his ninth book against the same antagonist, says that 
nothing in the scriptures is difficult to those who use them as they 
ought; but that every sentence in them is inaccessible to Julian 
and such as he. 


[4 Basil. Opp. T. a. p. 542, a. B. 1618.] 

[5 rà» pgràv mávry ev Ilvevpare Ayío karqvyaauévov.—T. 1. p. 763. ed. 
Petav.] 

[6 Ibid. p. 920, 4.] 

[7 Sed dicet aliquis quod divina scriptura communem omnibus et vulga- 
rem ac protritam habet dictionem, res autem Greecorum diserte dicuntur, et 
abundant gratia et eloquentia. Dicimus igitur, quod lingua quidem Hebreeo- 
rum Prophetica dicta sunt et Mosaica: ut autem omnibus essent note par- 
vis et magnis, utiliter familiari sermone commendate sunt, ita ut nullius 
captum transcendant.—col. 160. Basil. 1569. | 


400 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


Fulgentius, in his discourse concerning the confessors, writes 
thus upon this subject: “In which commandments (that is, the 
divine) as in most rich viands, the spiritual abundance of heavenly 
dainties is so exuberant, that there is in the word of God plenty 
for the perfect to eat, and plenty also for the babe to suck. For 
there is both the milk of the suckling, whereby the tender infancy 
of the faithful may be nourished, and the solid food whereby the 
robust youth of the perfect may gain spiritual increase of holy 
vigour. There provision is made universally for the salvation of 
all whom the Lord designs to save. There is what suits every age; 
there is what fits every profession. There we hear the precepts 
which we should perform: there we know the rewards we are to 
hope for. There is the command which teaches by the letter, and 
instructs us unto knowledge: there the promise which draws us 
by grace, and leads us to glory'." Gregory the great, in the 
epistle to Leander, which may be found at the end of the works 
of Gregory, compares the scripture to a river, in which “ the ele- 
phant may swim, and yet the lamb may walk." 

Bernard, in his discourse upon those words of Wisdom, ** The 
Lord hath led the just by straight paths," writes in this manner: 
“The ways of the Lord are right ways, fair ways, full ways, plain 
ways: right, without error, because they lead to life; fair, with- 
out soil, because they teach purity ; full in multitude, because the 
whole world is now within the net of Christ; plain, without diffi- 
culty, because they freely bestow sweetness?.” 

The same may be proved even from the papists themselves. For 
Andradius, in his second book of orthodox explications, says that those 
things which are the chief heads of faith are to be held explicitly even 
by the ignorant people; and that there is no degree of rudeness so 


[! In quibus denuo mandatis, tanquam ditissimis ferculis, sic coelestium 
deliciarum copia spiritalis exuberat, ut in verbo Dei abundet quod perfectus 
comedat; abundet etiam quod parvulus sugat. Ibi est enim simul et lacteus 
potus, quo tenera fidelium nutriatur infantia, et solidus cibus quo robusta 
perfectorum juventus spiritualia sanctz virtutis accipiat incrementa. Ibi 
prorsus ad salutem consulitur universis quos Dominus salvare dignatur. Ibi 
est quod omni etati congruat: ibi quod omni professioni conveniat, etc.— 
p. 649. Antwerp. 1574.] 

[? Vise Domini viz rectze, vie pulchree, vice plense, via plans: recte sine 
errore, quia ducunt ad vitam; pulchre sine sorde, quia docent munditiam ; 
plenz multitudine, quia totus jam mundus est intra Christi sagenam; planze 
sine difficultate, quia donant suavitatem.—Sermones de Divers. Serm. xx. 1. 
Bernard. Opp. T. 11. p. 41. Paris. 1835.] 


Iv. | QUESTION THE FOURTH. 401 


great as to exempt an ignorance of these from crime, though it suffice 
to hold the rest implicitly. Therefore the chief heads of faith, 
even according to Andradius, are plainly proposed in scripture, and 
none ought to be ignorant of them, however rude and unlearned. 
Catharinus, in his commentary on 2 Tim. ili. says, that to him who 
hath faith the scriptures * make themselves easy, as much as may 
be, and familiar to be understood.” Likewise Sixtus Senensis, 
Biblioth. Lib. 6, Annotat. 151, distributes the scriptures into two 
classes, one of which he allows to be “plain and clear, as con- 
taining the first and highest principles of what should be believed, 
and the chief precepts of good morals, and easy examples; of which 
kind are the moral sentences, and some of the sacred narratives, 
useful for moulding our manners*.” Thus our opponents confess 
that those things are plain in scripture, which contain the chief 
heads of faith, and precepts and examples of practice. We accept 
this admission; nor did we ever think or write that every thing 
was plain in scripture. For it is sufficient for the people to learn 
from the scriptures those chief principles of faith, which are neces- 
sary for every man’s salvation, and imitate the precepts and exam- 
ples of a life becoming Christians, which occur everywhere in the 
sacred pages. For we do not say that the scriptures are simply or 
universally plain, but in the chief and most necessary things, so as 
to be capable of being read with benefit by the people. Our 
adversaries allow that the scriptures are clear in those things 
which are the chief and highest principles of faith or ele- 
ments of virtue, and yet do not permit the people to read the 
scriptures. What can be more iniquitous? Indeed all the papists 
in their books, when they seek to prove any thing, boast every- 
where that they can bring arguments against us from the most 
luminous, plain, clear and manifest testimonies of scripture: there- 
fore, there are many very clear passages in scripture. For in 
every dispute their common phrases are,—This is clear,—This is 
plain,—This is manifest in the scriptures, and such like. Surely 
when they speak thus, they ignorantly and unawares confess the 
perspicuity of the scriptures even in the greatest questions and con- 
troversies. And so far of the fourth question. 


[3 Utpote que prima summaque rerum credendarum principia, ac preci- 
pua bene vivendi przcepta et exemplo cognitu facilia complectantur, ut sunt 
morales sententia, et saerze qusedam historize formandis moribus utiles.] - 





26 


[WHITAKER. | 


THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. 


QUESTION V. 


CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. 





CHAPTER I. 


THE STATE OF THE QUESTION. 


Ir is written, John v. 39, "Epevváre rds rypapas, ** Search 
the scriptures.” Christ our Saviour said this to excite the Jews, 
and all of us also, to investigate the true sense of scripture. For 
the scripture consists not in the bare words, but in the sense, inter- 
pretation, and meaning of the words. This is plain from Basil, in 
his second book against Eunomius, where he says, that “ piety is 
not in the sound of the air, but in the force and meaning of the 
things denoted’.” The same appears also from Jerome's commentary 
upon the first chapter of the Galatians, where he writes thus: 
* Let us not think that the Gospel is in the words of scripture, 
but in the sense ; not on the surface, but in the marrow ; not in the 
leaves of speech, but in the root of reason?." Since scripture there- 
fore is concerned not merely with the words, but the true sense of 
the words, which we may rightly call the very life and soul of 
scripture; it is plain that this precept of Christ, wherein he bids 
us “search the scriptures,” is to be understood of the sense and 
meaning of the scriptures, and not of the bare words alone. 
Hence arises this question, concerning which we dispute with the 
papists,— Whence the true interpretation of scripture is to be 
sought? Here we must seek first the state of the question; and 
then come to the arguments on both sides. The Tridentine fa- 
thers, in their fourth session, command that no one shall dare 
to interpret holy scripture contrary to that sense which holy 


[! I cannot find this in the place specified ; and suppose there is a mistake 
in the reference.] 

[? Ne putemus in verbis scripturarum esse evangelium, sed in sensu ; non 
in superficie, sed in medulla; non in sermonum foliis, sed in radice rationis. 
—T. vn. p. 380.] 


1. | 3 QUESTION THE FIFTH. 403 


mother church hath held, and holds, to whom (as they say) it 
belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of scripture ; 
or contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers. They seem, 
therefore, to determine that the interpretation of scripture is the 
privilege of the church, and that that is the true one which agrees 
with the fathers. But stil the matter is left in doubt. For we 
inquire further, what is this church; and who are these fathers? 
We must, therefore, consult other papists in order to gain a full 
and perfect knowledge of the true state of the question. I mean 
to follow in this matter especially the Jesuit Bellarmine and Sta- 
pleton: and I will divide the whole course of this question into 
two parts, treating, first, of the authority and supreme tribunal 
for interpreting scripture, with whom it is lodged; next, of the 
means to be used in the interpretation of scripture. But first we 
must premise something in the way of prolegomena, which are 
of great importance to the understanding of the question. 





CHAPTER II. 


OF CERTAIN PRELIMINARIES, NECESSARY FOR UNDERSTANDING 
THE STATE OF THE QUESTION. 


Our rinsT preliminary observation shall be upon the number of 
the senses of scripture, which the fathers determine to be various; 
that is, the historical, which they have styled also the grammatical 
or literal sense, the eetiological, the analogical, and the allegorical. 
Upon this fourfold interpretation of scripture consult Augustine, de 
Utilitate Credendi, c. 3: where he says that it is the historic sense, 
when we are told what was done, and what not done; that scripture 
is expounded setiologically, when it is shewn why any thing was 
done or said; analogically, when the agreement of both Testaments 
is explained; allegorically, when we are taught that some things 
which are written are not to be taken in the letter, but understood 
figuratively. Others, however, enumerate other kinds of mystical 
senses, as the tropological, the allegorical, and anagogic; of which 
we read a great deal in Origen and the rest. The Jesuit divides 
all these senses into two species; the historic or literal, and the 
mystic or spiritual. He defines the historic or literal, as that which 
the words present immediately ; and the mystic or spiritual, that 
which is referred to something besides what the words express ; 
and this he says is either tropological, or anagogic, or allegorical. 

26—2 


404 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


Thomas Aquinas, in the first part of his Sum. Quest. r. Art. 10, 
says out of Gregory, Moral. Lib. xx. c. 1, that it is the peculiar 
property of scripture, and of no other authors, that not only the 
words, but the things also, have a signification; and this he says is 
denoted by that book mentioned Ezek. i. 10, and Revel v. 1, 
which was * written within and without." The words of Gregory 
cited by Thomas are these: “The sacred scripture transcends 
other sciences in the very manner of its expression, since in one 
and the same discourse it discloses a mystery while it narrates an 
event!.” Nazianzen compares the literal sense to the body, the 
mystical and spiritual to the soul. The Jesuit uses a different 
simile: * As," says he, “the begotten Word of God hath two 
natures, the one human and visible, the other divine and invisible; 
so the written word of God hath a two-fold sense: the one outward, 
that is, historic or literal; the other, inward, that is, mystic or 
spiritual.” Then he determines that this spiritual sense is three- 
fold, allegorical, anagogic, and tropological, as we have said before 
that others had determined also. These things we do not wholly 
reject: we concede such things as allegory, anagoge, and tropo- 
logy in scripture; but meanwhile we deny that there are many 
and various senses. We affirm that there is but one true, proper 
and genuine sense of scripture, arising from the words rightly un- 
derstood, which we call the literal: and we contend that allegories, 
tropologies, and anagoges are not various senses, but various collec- 
tions from one sense, or various applications and accommodations 
of that one meaning. 

Now the Jesuit’s assertion, that the literal sense is that which 
the words immediately present, is not true. For then what, I 
beseech you, will be the literal sense of these words, Ps. xci. 13, 
“Thou shalt go upon the adder and the basilisk; the lion and the 
dragon shalt thou trample under foot?” For if that be the literal 
sense of these words, which the words immediately present, let 
them shew us the lion on which Christ trampled, the adder or 
basilisk on which he walked. Either, therefore, the literal sense is 
not that which the words immediately present, as the Jesuit main- 
tains; or these words have no literal sense, which he dares not 
affirm. For they say that all the senses mentioned above are to 
be found in every passage of scripture. Besides, what will they 

[1 Sacra scriptura reliquas scientias ipso locutionis suze more transcendit, 


quia uno eodemque sermone, dum gestum narrat, prodit mysterium.—p. 4. 
Par. 1639.] 


i. | QUESTION THE FIFTH. 405 


make the literal sense of Isaiah xi. 6, 7, 8, and lxv. last verse? 
where the prophet says that “the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, 
and the leopard lie down with the kid, the calf and the lion and 
the sheep shall dwell together, and the calf and the bear pasture 
together,” &c. Certainly no one can shew where and when this 
prophecy was fulfilled according to the letter, if we determine the 
literal sense to be that which the words immediately suggest. 
Finally, if this Jesuitical definition of the literal sense be true, 
what literal sense, I pray you, will remain in those words of 
Christ, Matth. v. 29, 30, “If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it 
out; if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off?” Origen, indeed, 
though elsewhere too much given to allegories and mystical senses, 
interpreted these words according to the letter, but absurdly. The 
literal sense, then, is not that which the words immediately suggest, 
as the Jesuit defines it; but rather that which arises from the 
words themselves, whether they be taken strictly or figuratively. 
If the discourse be figurative, it is not to be explained according to 
that meaning which the sound of the words would at first and im- 
mediately suggest. This is what Alphonsus de Castro seems to 
affirm, Contra Heres. Lib. 1. e. 3, where he defines the literal 
sense better than the Jesuit, making it that which either the words, 
or the things expressed by the words, denote. For example, the 
literal sense of these words, * The seed of the woman shall crush 
the serpent's head," is this, that Christ shall beat down Satan, and 
break and crush all his force and power ; although the devil neither 
is a serpent, nor hath a head. 

As to those three spiritual senses, it is surely foolish to say 
that there are as many senses of scripture as the words themselves 
may be transferred and accommodated to bear. For although the 
words may be applied and accommodated tropologically, allego- 
rically, anagogically, or any other way ; yet there are not therefore 
various senses, various interpretations and explications of scripture, 
but there is but one sense, and that the literal, which may be 
variously accommodated, and from which various things may be 
collected. The apostle, indeed, Galat. iv. 24, interprets the history 
of Abraham's two wives allegorically, or rather typically, of the 
two Testaments; for he says in express words, &Twa éotw addAn- 
ryopouueva, &c. But there he does not make a two-fold sense of 
that history, but only says that it may be allegorically interpreted 
to his purpose, and the illustration of the subject which he hath in 
hand. Indeed, there is a certain catachresis in the word aAA;- 


406 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


ryopoupeva, for that history is not accommodated by Paul in that 
place allegorically, but typically; and a type is a different thing 
from an allegory. The sense, therefore, of that scripture is one 
only, namely, the literal or grammatical. However, the whole en- 
tire sense is not in the words taken strictly, but part in the type, 
part in the transaction itself. In either of these considered sepa- 
rately and by itself part only of the meaning is contained; and by 
both taken together the full and perfect meaning is completed. 

The same is to be thought of all those places in which scrip- 
ture interprets any thing in an allegorie sense. lence we per- 
ceive that there is but one true and genuine sense of scripture, 
namely, the literal or grammatical, whether it arise from the words 
taken strictly, or from the words figuratively understood, or from 
both together; and that allegorical expositions are not various 
meanings, but only various applications and accommodations of 
scripture. Such allegories, indeed, we may sometimes use with 
profit and advantage to give pleasure, not to coerce assent; espe- 
cially when scripture explains a thing allegorically, for otherwise 
we should be frugal of inventing allegories. David fought with 
Goliah. David was a type of Christ, and Goliah of the devil. 
Therefore, this fight and victory of David may be typically accom- 
modated to denote the combat of Christ with Satan, and his victory. 
One may also give an allegorical accommodation of the same nar- 
rative, thus: David overcame Goliah. So ought we to overcome 
our passions, which wage a kind of giant war within us against the 
Spirit of God. I confess that these are true and may be fitly said: 
but it would be absurd to say that either the one or the other was 
the sense of this history. So much upon allegories. 

Tropology hath still less claims to be esteemed a new sense, 
because it flows plainly and necessarily from the very words, and is 
therefore collected from the text itself. It is nothing more than an 
ethical treatment of scripture, when we collect from the scriptures 
what is suitable to direct our lives and form our morals, and hath 
place in common life: as, Abraham overcame five kings with a small 
band; therefore we should neither trust too much to a great num- 
ber, nor despair with a few. David, given up to inactivity, was 
entangled by love, and so fell into adultery: therefore we should 
shun idleness. Noah, when drunk, lay shamefully exposed, and so 
became the sport of his own son: therefore we should beware of 
drunkenness, lest we fall into disgrace and mischief. ‘ Thou shalt 
not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn:” therefore ministers 


11. ] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 407 


are to be supported and supplied with all things needful. This is 
what Paul collects from the words, 1 Cor, ix. 9, and 1 Tim. v. 18. 
Peter in the hall of the high priest denied Christ, but went out and 
repented: therefore the company of evil men is to be avoided. 
Christ also hath used this mode of interpretation, Matth. xii. 41, 42, 
where he accommodates to the case of the Jews then present the 
repentance of the Ninevites immediately upon hearing Jonah, and the 
long journey of the queen of Sheba to Solomon. In this treatment 
of texts, and such educings of various admonitions and exhortations, 
the greatest part of the minister’s function lies. But all such things 
flow and are concluded from the very words themselves. This, 
therefore, is not a new or various meaning, foreign to the words 
themselves, but absolutely one and the same with the literal sense. 
We should form a like judgment of the type or anagoge. In 
Psalm xev. God says, *I sware in my wrath, that they should 
not enter into my rest." There the rest may be understood both 
of the land of Canaan, and typically also of the kingdom of hea- 
ven: for the realm of Canaan was a type of the kingdom of 
heaven. Yet this 1s not a twofold sense; but, when the sign is re- 
ferred to the thing signified, that which was hidden in the sign is 
more openly expressed. When we proceed from the sign to the 
thing signified, we bring no new sense, but only bring out into 
light what was before concealed in the sign. When we speak of 
the sign by itself, we express only part of the meaning ; and so also 
when we mention only the thing signified: but when the mutual 
relation between the sign and the thing signified is brought out, 
then the whole complete sense, which is founded upon this simili- 
tude and agreement, is set forth. Paul says, 1 Cor. x. 11, “ All 
these things happened to them for ensamples," or typically, cv7o: 
cvve(Jawov €ketvois, &c.: the meaning of the place is, that we 
should accommodate the events of the ancient Jewish people to our 
instruction, so as that, admonished by their example, we may learn 
to please God, and avoid idolatry and other sins; not that we are to 
collect from all these things I know not what new and spiritual mean- 
ing. For although this sense be spiritual, yet it is not a different one, 
but really literal; since the letter itself affords it to us in the way 
of similitude or argument. The Jews were punished when they sin- 
ned: therefore, if we sin in like manner, we shall bear and pay to 
God similar penalties. He hath set before us the punishment of the 
Jews pourtrayed as it were in a picture, that we may constantly 
have it before our eyes. They had indeed many things of a 


408 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


typical nature, the cloud, the passage through the sea, the water 
from the rock, the manna; which all were symbols to the pious of 
heavenly things. As the water flowing from the rock refreshed 
the weary people, and the manna fed them, so Christ cheers and 
preserves us. As they were enveloped in the cloud, and set in the 
midst of the waves of the great deep, so all the godly are washed by 
the blood of Christ. These were all sacraments to them, and so 
the pious understood them. When, therefore, these are expounded 
literally of the things themselves, ‘spiritually of celestial graces, we 
do not make two diverse senses; but, by expounding a similitude, 
we compare the sign with the thing signified, and so bring out the 
true and entire sense of the words. So in our sacraments there 
are not two senses, the literal and the mystical; but one only, 
founded in the comparison and conjunction of the signs and things. 
As our bodies are washed with water, so our souls are purified by 
the blood of Christ: as our bodies are strengthened with bread 
and wine, so are we wholly sustained by the flesh and blood of our 
Saviour. So from these types Paul argues: If the Jews perished for 
their crimes, we also shall perish, if we commit the same offences. 
Paul does not there deliver a twofold sense, but he draws and sets 
forth an example from those things which befel the Jewish people, 
by which he admonishes the Corinthians to take warning. 

The sense of scripture, therefore, is but one,—the literal ; 
for it is folly to feign many senses, merely because many things 
follow from the words of scripture rightly understood. Those 
things may, indeed, be called corollaries or consequences, flowing 
from the right understanding of the words, but new and dif- 
ferent senses they are by no means. Thomas Aquinas himself 
appears to have seen this; for, in the Ist part of his Sum. Quest. 
I Art. 10, he writes thus: “Since the literal sense is that which 
the author intends, and the author of holy scripture is God, who 
comprehends all things together in his mind; there is nothing im- 
proper in saying that, even according to the literal sense, there 
are several meanings of scripture in one text!.” Since then that 
is the sense of scripture, and the literal sense, which the Holy 
Spirit intends, however it may be gathered; certainly, if the Holy 
Spirit intended the tropologic, anagogic, or allegoric sense of any 


[1 Quia sensus literalis est quem auctor intendat, auctor autem sacre 
scripture Deus est, qui omnia simul suo intellectu comprehendit; non est 
inconveniens, si etiam secundum literalem sensum in una litera scripture 
plures sint sensus.—p. 4. Par. 1639.] 


i. | QUESTION THE FIFTH. 409 


place, these senses are not different from the literal, as Thomas hath 
expressly taught us. So also Alphonsus de Castro, Lib. 1. contra 
Heres. cap. 3. ** He that shall choose to confine the sense of a 
parable within the letter, will not do amiss?, So much for the 
first preliminary. 

We must note and observe in the sEcoxp place, that it is only 
from the literal sense that strong, valid, and efficacious arguments 
can be derived; which is the concession even of our adversaries 
themselves. It follows, therefore, that this and no other is the 
genuine sense of scripture. For a firm argument may always be 
derived from the genuine and proper sense. Since, therefore, 
firm inferences cannot be made from those other senses, it is evi- 
dent that they are not true and genuine meanings. Therefore, 
iropology, allegory, and anagoge, if they are real meanings, are 
literal ones. Now the reason why sound arguments are always derived 
from the literal sense is this, because it is certain that that which is 
derived from the words themselves is ever the sense of the Holy 
Spirit ; but we are not so certain of any mystical sense, except when 
the Holy Spirit himself so teaches us. For example, it is written, 
Hosea xi. 1, * Out of Egypt have I called my son;" and Exod. 
xii. 46, “ Thou shalt not break a bone of him.” It is sufficiently 
plain that the former is to be understood of the people of Israel, 
and the latter of the paschal lamb. Who, now, would dare to 
transfer and accommodate these to Christ, if the Holy Spirit had 
not done it first, and declared to us his mind and intention ?— 
namely, that the Son in the former passage denotes not only the 
people of Israel, but Christ also; and the bone, in the latter, is to 
be understood of Christ as well as of the paschal lamb. They who 
interpret those places merely of the people of Israel or the paschal 
lamb, bring only part of the meaning, not the whole: because the 
entire sense is to be understood of the sign and the thing itself 
taken together, and consists in the accommodation of the sign to the 
thing signified. Hereupon emerge not different senses, but one en- 
tire sense. However, we must argue from the literal sense: and 
hence comes that vulgar and trite proverb, that metaphorical and 
symbolic theology is not argumentative; which Thomas, in the 
place quoted above, proves out of Augustine, Epist. 48, contra 
Vincent. Donat., as also Jerome on the 13th of Matthew. Hence 
also Dionysius the Areopagite says in a certain place, that “mystical 


[? Sensum parabole qui intra literalem cireumsopire voluerit, non abs re 
faciet. —De Sensu Parab. p. 5. Par. 1564.] 


410 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ oH. 
theology does not prove any thing.” Alphonsus discourses copiously 
upon this subject, Lib. 1. c. 3; and Andradius says, Trident. De- 
Jens. Lib. r., that “the literal sense alone supplies arguments to 
confirm the doctrines of religion!” 

Our THIRD preliminary observation is, that we must not bring 
any private meanings, or private opinions, but only such as agree 
with the mind, intention, and dictate of the Holy Spirit. For, since 
he is the author of the scriptures, it is fit that we should follow him 
in interpreting scripture. This our adversaries concede: for both 
plain reason convinces them, and that passage in 2 Pet. i. 20, makes 
the matter sufficiently clear, where Peter says no scripture is iias 
emtdvcews. But what is the sense of the Holy Spirit? what his 
mind and intention, wherewith all our interpretation should suit and 
agree? In this the controversy consists. Now therefore we must 
proceed to the discussion. 





CHAPTER III. 


THE STATE OF THE FORMER PART OF THIS QUESTION TREATED 
MORE AT LARGE. 


We have already made two divisions of this question ;—the 
former, concerning the authority of interpreting the scriptures, with 
whom it is vested; the latter, concerning the means by which we 
may come to the true sense of scripture. We have now to treat of 
the former, in the first place, and afterwards we shall consider the 
latter also in its proper place. 

As to the former part of this controversy, our adversaries, 
upon their side, attribute this authority of which we speak to the 
church, and pronounce it to be the church’s privilege to interpret 
scripture. So the council of Trent, Sess. 4?, whose judgment Sta- 
pleton affirms and explains, Lib. x. c. 11, with a copiousness excelled 


[! See also Thomas Aquinas, Summ. Theol. Pars. 1. q. 1. Art. 10. Sixtus 
Senensis. Bibl. S. Lib. nr. p. 141. Vega, de Justificatione, Lib. 1x. c. 44. 
Salmeron. Comment. in Heb. i. Disp. 7. $ idem.] 


[2 Nemo..... contra eum sensum quem tenuit et tenet sancta mater 
ecclesia, cujus est judicare de vero sensu et interpretatione scripturarum 
sanctarum,..... ipsam scripturam sacram interpretari audeat.—Sess. iv. 


Decret. 11. p. 20, 21. Lips. 1837.] 


ni. | QUESTION THE FIFTH. 411 


by no other writer. However, here too a question arises. For we 
also say that the church is the interpreter of scripture, and that 
this gift of interpretation resides only in the church: but we deny 
that it pertains to particular persons, or is tied to any particular 
see or succession of men. We must see, therefore, what is the sense 
borne by that axiom or postulate of the papists, wherein they assert 
so confidently that the church hath the authority of interpreting the 
scriptures. The intent of this assertion, it seems, we may seek and 
find in Stapleton, who (as was said above) interprets the council of 
Trent in a large exposition. Now Stapleton says, that the sense of 
scripture is not that which is given by any bishop or catholic pastor, 
but teaches us that we must apply certain cautions, such as these. 

The first caution is, that the enemies of the church are not to 
be listened to. This we also concede;—that when the sense of scrip- 
ture 1s sought for, the enemies of the church are not to be consulted. 
But which is that church? He takes it for granted that their 
church is the true church ; which none of us will ever grant. The 
second caution is, that we are not bound to believe any catholic, 
however learned, if he be only a private person. He must, there- 
fore, bear a publie character, and be a magistrate, whom we are 
obliged to believe in this matter. The third caution is, that we 
should consider what the bishops and pastors of the church have 
thought, delivered, and determined, concerning the interpretation of 
this or that scripture. The fourth caution is, that what they have 
determined should be received and held without hesitation. But 
here he interposes two conditions: the first is, Provided they 
have remained in catholic unity,—that is, have quietly and con- 
tentedly subjected themselves to the authority of the pope, and not 
revolted from him: the second is, If they have agreed with all 
their colleagues in the episcopate. But, in this way, even the 
common expositions of the fathers are not to be received and held, 
because we do not know whether they agreed with their brother 
bishops. For there were many other bishops of those times, of whom 
no writings or monuments whatever remain. Whence can we know 
that Augustine Ambrose, and others agreed with their colleagues 
in the episcopate, whose books are not now in our hands? 

The jifth caution is: We ought to refer an opinion about 
which we entertain doubts to a council. But we cannot always and 
immediately, when we are in doubt of the meaning of a place, 
assemble a council; and councils may err, as we shall prove here- 
after in its proper place. There follows, therefore, another caution, 


412 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


which is to this effect : Since it is very difficult to assemble councils, 
and they have not supreme authority, and sometimes even err, it 
behoves us to await the sentence of the supreme pastor, or (as he 
expresses it) the supreme head, upon understanding which all doubt 
will be put an end to. But where was the need of these long 
circuits? Why are we not sent straight at once to the supreme 
pastor and pontiff, without minding fathers, bishops, and councils ? 
Why not repair to and consult him in the first place? Why not, 
at the very outset, lay before him our questions and doubts, since 
everything must finally of necessity devolve on him? Perhaps it 
would be too troublesome for the pope to have frequently to give 
answers upon the sense of scripture, especially since he is busily 
employed with other more weighty matters, in which he loves 
better to be occupied. But at present, I suppose, we must stop 
here. For, when we have come to the pope, what more can we 
desire? Still not even yet have we done enough. Stapleton per- 
ceives that neither of fathers, nor councils, nor Roman pontiffs are 
all the expositions true; and therefore there is still need of fresh 
cautions. Still many doubts occur concerning these cautions, and 
the affair is not yet brought to an end. 

Accordingly he adds a seventh caution, which is this: that the 
sense of scripture 1s so to be embraced and held as the church would 
have it held, and in the same degree as the church: that is, what 
the church declares to be held as matter of faith, we also should 
hold as of faith; what she hath willed and taught to be held as 
probable and useful, is to be held similarly by us. But how shall 
we know what the church holds as matter of faith, and what as 
only probable? This he explains in the next caution. The eighth 
caution is: that the church holds that as of faith, and propounds 
also to us to be held as of faith, firstly, which she proposes under an 
anathema; secondly, which she constantly maintains against heretics ; 
thirdly, which she delivers as the orthodox sense; fourthly and 
lastly, which is elicited by the application of those means which Sta- 
pleton is afterwards to deliver. 

The ninth caution is: that whatever bishops may have written 
or said, or howsoever they may have expounded scripture, their 
exposition is not necessarily to be received, if they have only 
written, spoken, or expounded by the way. But this involves us 
in still greater doubts. For how shall we certainly understand 
what things are written by the way, what seriously, carefully, and 
professedly, unless the men themselves who write shall tell us? 


mr] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 413 


Surely we must here stand in endless hesitation. But, in the 
meantime, what are we to think of the schoolmen? This he ex- 
plains in the next caution. The tenth caution therefore is: that 
the schoolmen have no certain or infallible authority of expounding 
scripture. Thus the schoolmen are deprived of authority. You 
see what a matter it is amongst them to be a bishop. All the 
fathers, who were not bishops, have their authority lowered by 
Stapleton. Such are Origen, Tertullian, Jerome, Bernard, Lom. 
bard, all the monks, Aquinas, Bonaventura, Scotus, Stapleton him- 
self, and all such writers who are not yet advanced and promoted 
to the episcopal function. Their interpretation, therefore, he says, 
is not to be followed under pain of infidelity, but only of gross con- 
tumaciousness. But what is to be thought of the bishops? He 
shews this in the next caution. The eleventh caution, therefore, 
is; that whatever even the bishops themselves may have said or 
written, if they did not teach it as bishops ex cathedra, hath no 
certain authority, and is not of necessity to be received by us. 
But we have not heard Augustine and the other fathers teaching 
from the chair, and therefore are ignorant what they taught from 
the chair, what not, or whether they taught from the chair at all. 
We have only their books. What are we then to determine con- 
cerning them? — Forsooth, that those are to be received which the 
church hath received and approved ; whereof a catalogue is set forth 
by Gelasius in Gratian, causa 15. Tit. Ecclesia Romana!, But 
are all these to be received? They will not themselves say this 
either: for they do not receive all. Yea, there are many things 
in all those books which the papists themselves are compelled to 
reject; and, therefore, he adds a twelfth caution, which is to this 
effect: that a certain argument cannot immediately be gathered 
from every interpretation of the fathers. Next follows the thir- 
teenth caution, not much unlike the preceding; namely, that we 
must not bind ourselves absolutely to the opinions of any doctor, 
or schoolman, or churchman. What then,— where shall we stop at 
last? Finally, he adds, that we should make recourse to the church, 
follow her authority, and acquiesce in her judgment. This is taking 
a long circuit for nothing. Why did he not bring us straight at 
once to this point? He might at the beginning have sent us to 
the church, and dispatched this whole business in a few words. 


[! The reference should be, Gratian. Decret. Distinct. xv. e. 3. Sancta 
Romana Ecclesia. Whitaker has, by a mistake, quoted the second for the 
first part of the Decree.] 


414 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


But what is this church, to which we are to repair in the last 
resort, and by whose interpretation we ought to abide? For- 
sooth, the Roman; for they mean no other whenever they speak 
of the church. The sense of scripture, therefore, must be referred 
to the Roman church. But what is this Roman church? Must 
all be consulted who belong to it? By no means; for no one 
could do this, though he spent his life in it. What then? perhaps 
we should only consult the bishops and pastors; for they always 
mean these by the Roman church. But even these we could never 
meet personally. Therefore, finally, the church is the supreme 
pontiff. To him we must repair, hang upon his lips, and seek from 
him the interpretation of scripture. But do the papists make a 
reasonable demand, when they would have us submit ourselves to 
his judgment, and depend upon his interpretation, whom we accuse 
as a false interpreter of scripture, yea, whom we affirm to be the 
very antichrist himself? Surely, they are very unjust, and plainly 
betray their own want of confidence, when they confess that they 
cannot prove their cause to us without appealing to him, and refer- 
ring all to the judgment of him whom they know willing always to 
be on their side, and unwilling ever to pronounce anything against 
them and himself. Such then are Stapleton’s cautions. 

But the Jesuit comprises the matter in a smaller compass. 
First, he says that the sense of scripture is to be sought in the 
fathers when they agree. But they seldom agree. How, there- 
fore, shall this agreement be made certainly evident to us? Besides, 
even when they agree, why should we rather believe them so 
agreeing than scripture agreeing with itself? Secondly, if we are 
still doubtful of the sense of scripture, he desires us to seek it from 
a council confirmed by the chief pastor. Thirdly, if even thus all 
doubt be not removed, we must seek it from the chief pastor him- 
self with his council of pastors. Mark how cautiously and with 
what hesitation he speaks of his supreme pontiff! But hath not 
the pope of himself authority to interpret scripture ? He dares not 
to affirm this; and yet doubtless this is what he means. He was 
ashamed, it seems, to ascribe such great authority to the pope 
alone. Yet neither did he dare to deny it altogether ; and there- 
fore timidly and confusedly he names the pope together with a 
council of pastors. It was once a great question, whether the 
authority of a council or of the pope was greater in interpreting 
scripture. Formerly they used to believe that the authority of a 
council was greater than that of the pope; but, since the councils of 


IL. | | QUESTION THE FIFTH. 415 


Constance and Basle, a greater authority hath been attributed to 
the pope. Yet here, I know not how, the Jesuit joins a council of 
pastors to the pope. Alphonsus, contra Heres. Lib. 1. c. 4, seems to 
follow the old opinion: for he says that a council alone hath this 
supreme authority, because a council alone is the church represent- 
ative. And, chap. 8, he says that the apostolic see hath the next 
place after a general council in making definitions. Afterwards he 
explains what he meant by the apostolic see: ‘‘ The apostolic see,” 
says he, * comprehends not only the supreme pontiff, but also that 
council which the pontiff uses, and by which he is aided in making 
a definition.” And this too is perhaps the council which the Jesuit 
means in this place, when he joins a council of pastors with the 
pope. But all the cardinals are not pastors; for some are pres- 
byters, some only deacons; and these men call none but bishops 
pastors. Besides, the cardinals attend the pope only in the way 
of ornament and pomp, and have no place in the settling of any 
definition. Yea, although all the cardinals were to say nay, yet 
the pope can define what he will. Therefore, although the Jesuit 
puts a council of pastors along with the pope, yet in reality this 
authority of interpretation is lodged with the pope alone; because, 
however much the rest oppose, yet his opinion shall always stand 
and prevail. The question then is, whether the authority of inter- 
preting scripture be lodged with the church thus understood? The 
papists hold the affirmative; we the negative. 

We have heard now their opinion. It remains to see what 
ours is. Now we determine that the supreme right, authority, and 
judgment of interpreting the scriptures, is lodged with the Holy 
Ghost and the scripture itself: for these two are not mutually 
repugnant. We say that the Holy Spirit is the supreme interpreter 
of seripture, because we must be illuminated by the Holy Spirit to 
be certainly persuaded of the true sense of scripture; otherwise, 
although we use all means, we can never attain to that full assu- 
rance which resides in the minds of the faithful. But this is only 
an internal persuasion, and concerns only ourselves. As to external 
persuasion, we say that scripture itself is its own interpreter; and, 
therefore, that we should come to the external judgment of scrip- 
ture itself, in order to persuade others: in which proceeding we 
must also use means; of which more hereafter. But that the 
interpretation of scripture is tied to any certain see, or succession 
of men, we absolutely deny. Here, therefore, we have specially to 
discuss and prove two points: first, that the pope cannot claim for 


416 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


himself this power of interpreting the scriptures: secondly, that 
scripture is to be interpreted by scripture. 

Now, having proposed the state of the question, we must come 
to the contest and disputation. 





CHAPTER. IV. 


THE ARGUMENTS OF OUR OPPONENTS TAKEN FROM THE OLD 
TESTAMENT ARE SET ASIDE. 


STAPLETON hath treated this question at once loosely and 
confusedly. The Jesuit hath drawn his arguments into a conciser 
form. With him, therefore, our present contest shall principally 
be maintained. He adduces four arguments, whereof the first is 
from the authority of the old Testament, the second, from the 
authority of the new Testament; the third, from the common 
practice of the church, and the testimonies of the fathers; the 
fourth, from necessary reason. He cites seven testimonies from 
the old Testament, which we will examine in order. 

The first place is, Exodus xvii. 18, 26, from which he argues 
thus: after the people of God were collected and reduced to the 
form of a church, Moses sat as supreme judge; and afterwards 
also, though other judges were established, yet he reserved the 
more difficult causes for his own decision. Therefore, now also 
there ought to be in the church one common tribunal, and some 
supreme judge and moderator of all controversies, from whom no 
appeal is to be permitted. 

I answer, first; Moses was a prophet, endowed with singular 
wisdom, adorned with extraordinary gifts of God, commended 
also to the people by divine testimonies, and sent immediately by 
God himself. Now the pope hath no such qualifications. If he 
be such, let him shew us those extraordinary gifts wherewith he 
is endowed, and those testimonies by which he is by God commend- 
ed to the church, and so enable us to believe him. 

Secondly, I confess that in every republic there ought to be 
judges to determine and put an end to such disputes as arise 
amongst men, although not with so much authority as Moses: 
I confess also, that, in every particular church there should be 
ministers to interpret the scriptures to the people, and answer those 


Iv. ] | QUESTION THE FIFTH. 417 


who inquire concerning the will of God. But an argument from 
particular churches to the whole universal church does not hold: 
for then one might also conclude from this place, that there ought 
to be amongst Christians one supreme political judge (since Moses 
was such in the Israelitish republic), who should examine every 
thing that was brought into controversy. But even tho papists 
themselves do not require this. 

Thirdly, I affirm that this should be attributed to Aaron rather 
than to Moses, and that for two reasons: first, because Aaron was the 
ordinary priest and had successors ; not Moses, whose funetion was 
extraordinary : for Moses had no successors in his office. Now many 
of the priests, who in fixed succession after Aaron held the chief place 
in the church, were impious men and idolaters, as is clear from the 
sacred text. Secondly, because Moses was not a priest, after the law 
was published and Aaron consecrated and anointed, nor discharged 
any priestly function, but was merely a prophet: therefore we must 
not ascribe to him a judicial power, which, according to them, 
belongs only to a priest. As to our reading, Ps. xcix. 6, ** Moses 
and Aaron amongst his priests :” I answer, either that the Hebrew 
word! denotes chief men of the people, as in 2 Sam. viii. 18, where 
David's sons are said to have been Cohenim ; and Samuel was not 
a priest, nor born in a priestly family, as we see in 1 Chron. vi. 
27: or that Moses is called a priest, because he had been a priest 
before the consecration of Aaron; for afterwards he ceased to be a 
priest, and was only a prophet and magistrate. But the Jesuit says 
that Moses was an extraordinary priest, and greater than Aaron: 
and he illustrates this by a comparison to this effect, —namely, that 
in the new Testament Peter was an ordinary pastor, but the rest 
of the apostles extraordinary, because Peter had successors, but 
the rest none: so that Aaron was an ordinary priest, but Moses an 
extraordinary, because Aaron had successors, but Moses none. But 
this is a mere dull fiction. For who can say that Peter was an 
ordinary pastor, while the rest were extraordinary, when they all 
received the same vocation and the same charge from Christ, 
Matt. xxvii? Besides, Jerome, Ep. 85, plainly refutes this; for he 
says, that *all bishops are successors of the apostles?," not of Peter 


[1 WD Gesenius owns that * admodum vetus est sententia Hebreeorum, 
J12 etiam principem notare," though he rejects it himself.] 
[2 Apud nos Apostolorum locum episcopi tenent.—Ep. 41. T. r. p. 187. 
ed. Vallars.] 
27 


[ WHITAKER. | 


418 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


alone. So Cyprian, Ep. 69!: and the same author, in his book de 
Simplicitate Praelatorum, writes thus: ‘The other apostles were the 
same as Peter was, endowed with an equal share both of honour and 
of power”.” Besides, if there be any force in the Jesuit’s comparison, 
why, as Moses was superior to Aaron, because the latter was the 
ordinary priest, and Moses the extraordinary, were not also the other 
apostles superior to Peter; since he was the ordinary pastor, and they 
the extraordinary ? Thus, either the other apostles were superior to 
Peter, or this comparison of the Jesuit's suits his purpose in no way. 

Fourthly, if the authority of Moses was extraordinary, it cannot 
surely be dragged to establish any such ordinary authority as that 
which the papists maintain. 

Fifthly, it may be that Moses in this respect represented Christ, 
and was a type of him who is the supreme Judge of all contro- 
versies. But now all types are taken away; and it is a trite 
saying, that we cannot argue from types. 

Sixthly, if Moses were supreme judge, and a priest higher than 
Aaron, then there were two judges and two chief priests also in 
that people: yea, there was a priest higher than the chief priest ; 
which is impossible. 

The second place of the old Testament alleged by Bellarmine 
is contained in Deut. xvi. 8—13: “If there arise a matter 
too hard for thee in judgment between blood and blood," &c. “We 
see from this place," says the Jesuit, “that all who are in doubt 
on any matter, are sent to a living judge, not to their own private 
spirits." I answer: It is a malicious assertion of the Jesuit to say 
that we send men in doubt on any matter to their own private 
spirits: for we send no man to his own private spirit, but to 
scripture itself, and the Spirit of God speaking clearly in the scrip- 
ture. But, to give a distinct answer, I say, first, that this precept 
was conditional, as appears from the very words themselves. For 
they who consulted that supreme judge were ordered to do accord- 
ing to *that sentence of the law which he should teach them." 
All, therefore, are commanded to obey the decree of the judge, 
but with this condition, provided that he judge according to the 


[1 Potestas ergo peccatorum remittendorum Apostolis data est, et eccle- 
siis quas illi a Christo missi constituerunt, et episcopis qui eis ordinatione 
vicaria successerint.—Ep. 75. ed. Fell. p. 225. | 

[2 Hoc erant utique et ceteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio 
preediti et honoris et potestatis.—pp. 107, 108. This treatise is now more 
commonly (and more correctly) cited under the title, De Unitate Ecclesic. ] 


IV. ] | QUESTION THE FIFTH. 419 


law of God, that is, shew from the law that it is the will of God. 
This we also willingly concede, that every priest and minister, and 
not the pope alone, is to be obeyed whenever he judges according 
to the law. Meanwhile this place does not establish any such 
supreme judge as may determine what he pleases at his own caprice, 
and by whose judgment, though destitute of all scripture authority, 
we are bound to stand: yea, rather, when it requires him to 
answer according to the law, it assigns the supreme judgment to 
the law and not to him. Here the Jesuit brings many things to 
elude and overturn this answer. For he says, first, that those 
words, *and shall teach thee according to the law," are not to be 
found any where but in the Vulgate edition. I answer, first, that 
this is enough, since they hold that edition for authentie. Secondly, 
this condition is plainly expressed in the Hebrew copies, v. 11, 
al pi hathorah asher jorucha? : in which words the priest is bound 
to the mouth, that is, the sentence and declaration of the law, so as 
to decree nothing but what the law itself dictates and declares. 
Thus the priest ought to be a second mouth to this divine mouth. 
Secondly, he says that this is not a condition, but an assertion or 
promise: for Moses did not mean to say, Abide by the judgment 
of the priest, if he teach thee according to the law; for then men 
would have been reduced to greater doubts than before, and the 
priest would not be the judge, but they themselves, who would . 
have to judge of the sentence of the priest. I answer, men are 
remitted to the priest only in ambiguous and doubtful causes, and 
then required to abide by his judgment. What? Simply by 
whatever judgment he may pass? God never gave so great a 
power to any man; and the priest in this case he hath expressly 
tied to the law, to prevent his saying a word and making an answer 
beyond the law. Were men bound to abide by the judgment of 
the priest, even when he taught not according to the law ? Who 
would say so? Therefore the condition is necessary : and yet men 
are not thereby involved in greater doubts or made judges them- 
selves: for there was great judicial weight in the priest; and 
whatever he had once determined was held for rule to all external 
intents and purposes, in order that so controversies and disputes 
might be removed. Thirdly, he concludes from the premises, that 
it is not a condition, but a promise: as if God had said, Do thou 
abide by the judge's sentence, and I promise that the judge shall 


[| qm wig ming Ey] 
27—2 


420 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


always determine rightly. I answer, If such a promise be made 
to the priest, then the same pertains also to the political judge, 
because he is joined with the priest; and so the political judge also 
will be infallible in civil matters: which (I suppose) the papists will 
not allow. But he says that the judge here mentioned is ecclesi- 
astical, and not civil: whereas the falsehood of this pretence is 
plain from the context. Moses speaks there of controversies between 
blood and blood, plea and plea, which are forensic and civil actions: 
therefore he speaks of the civil judge. But, says he, if the civil 
judge be there spoken of, then the definitive sentence is assigned to 
the priest, but the execution to the judge: which is also manifestly 
false. For, first, these words are there contained in the Vulgate, 
Ex decreto judicis morietur. Therefore, the judge himself should 
pass sentence and adjudge the accused to death; and consequently 
the definitive sentence also is assigned to the judge. Again, there 
is à fault in the Vulgate edition. For in v. 12, ex occurs for either e£ 
or aut, as 1s clear from the Hebrew and Greek texts. In the Greek 
there is 7, or; and the Hebrew word also denotes or, but never 
from; so that the words should be read thus: * He who will not 
obey the priest or judge shall die." And that a disjunctive particle 
is required, is plain from v. 9: for they are ordered to come to 
the priests and to the judge; so that he who should presumptuously 
despise the priest or the judge should be put to death. Thus it is 
not every dissent from the decision, however modest, and with 
probable grounds, pious and reasonable ; but such as was bold, pre- 
sumptuous, headlong and frantie, that was punished capitally. The 
words of the text stand thus in the Vulgate: v. 12, Qui autem 
superbierit, nolens obedire sacerdotis imperio, qui eo tempore 
ministrat Domino Deo tuo, ex decreto judicis morietur. Hence 
the Jesuit gathers, that the definitive sentence belonged to the 
priest, the execution to the magistrate. But the Hebrew verity 
teaches us otherwise, which is to this effect: * And the man that 
will do presumptuously so as to refuse to hearken to the priest who 
stands to minister there before the Lord thy God, or to the judge, 
that man shall die." This law gives as much definitive authority 
to the judge as to the priest. The Hebrew has, o el hashophet!. 
Upon which place Cajetan writes thus: ‘The translator hath 
made a change: for in the Hebrew it is, or to the judge. The 
expression is disjunctive, ‘in not obeying the priest or the judge.’ 


[| DEOTTON IN] 


IV. | QUESTION THE FIFTH. 421 


Where I would have the intelligent reader observe, that the decision 
of an ambiguous case is not described as being made by a single 
person, but by many priests and the judge. The ordering ex- 
ecution is ascribed to the pontiff or the judge. Like penalties are 
decreed against the opposer of the priest and the judge? The 
Jesuit hath spoiled the cardinal's argument: for he says, first, that 
the particle is disjunctive; secondly, that the execution belonged 
to the pontiff or the judge; thirdly, that the same penalty was 
prescribed for him who resisted the judge as for him who resisted 
the priest; fourthly, that the definitive sentence was not of one 
priest, but of many, and of the judge. Jerome ab Oleastro, in his 
commentaries, gathers from this passage: “ That it is not free to 
judges to judge as they will, but according to the laws; and that 
we are commanded to obey them when they judge according to the 
same?,' But these men require obedience to whatever they pre- 
seribe, and will by no means suffer their decrees to be examined. 
Cyprian also, Ep. 69, cites this place thus: “It behoves us to 
hearken to the priest or the judge*" And so much for our first 
general reply to this testimony of the Jesuit’s. 

Secondly, I answer, that these words are not to be under- 
stood of a perpetual right of interpreting the scriptures, but only 
of an authority of determining difficult disputes and controversies ; 
if ecclesiastical, by the minister; if political or civil, by the magis- 
trate; so as that, in either case, there might be some one from 
whom there should be no appeal; for otherwise there would be 
no end of litigation. But now, there is no consequence in such 
an argument as this: disputes of murder, assault, blood, leprosy, 
and such like, are always to be determined by some judge, and 
there ought to be some certain tribunal for controversies at law: 
therefore, there ought to be some supreme judge with whom shall 
reside the power of interpreting scripture, and from whom no 
appeal shall be permitted. For no tribunal concerning religion 


[2 Interpres mutavit: nam Hebraice habetur, vel judici. Disjunctive 
enim dicitur, non obediendo sacerdoti vel judici. Ubi, prudens lector, ad- 
verte, quod definitio ambiguse causze non ab uno sed a multis sacerdotibus 
et judice describitur. Preecipere executionem attribuitur pontifici vel ju- 
diei. Par pcena decernitur opponentis se sacerdoti vel judici. ] 

[? Non est judicibus liberum judicare ut volunt, sed juxta leges; et illis 
parendum preecipit, cum secundum eas judicaverint.—Comment. in Penta- 
teuch. Lugdun. 1586.] 

(4 Cum Dominus Deus in Deuteronomio dicat, Et homo .... ut non 
exaudiat sacerdotem aut judicem.—Ep. 66. p. 166. ed. Fell.] 


422 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


hath been constituted by this law. God hath reserved this to 
himself, and hath allowed it to no man, knowing as he does how 
easily men corrupt religion with their perverse opinions. But 
this law is promulgated to establish external judgments of con- 
troversies at law, which either the magistrate or the priests are to 
judge. Now, no commonwealth can subsist, unless it have some 
supreme tribunal from which no appeal can be made; but still, in 
such cases, where it is consistent with religion, and not impious, to 
obey even an unjust sentence. But Bellarmine says that the law 
is general concerning all doubtful questions which arose out of the 
law; and that the occasion of the law was the case of those who 
served strange gods. I answer, first, there is no mention in the 
law of doubts arising out of the law; for in it none but external 
and forensie disputes are spoken of. Secondly, what he adds, of 
the occasion of the law, is false, and would be of no value if it 
were true. 

The third place which the Jesuit cites is taken from Ecclesi- 
astes xil. 11, where we read thus: “The words of the wise are 
as goads, and as nails driven deep, which by the counsel of the 
masters are given from one shepherd. Seek, my son, no more 
than these!" Solomon, says he, teaches us that we should 
thoroughly aequiesce when sentence is pronounced by the chief 
pastor, especially combined with the advice of sage councillors. And 
if these things are said of the priest of the old Testament, how 
much more may they be said of the priest of the new Testament, 
who hath received greater promises from God! I answer: The 
meaning is, that the doctrine and heavenly wisdom which the pro- 
phets delivered, and which the ministers of God teach and expound, 
is like to goads, because it strikes, excites, and urges us, and so 
rouses us from our sloth; and to nails, because it keeps us fixed 
and firm in piety ; and that one shepherd, who is there mentioned, 
is neither the pope, nor the priest of the old Testament, but Christ 
himself. For so Salonius, an old father, writes upon this place: 
* Who are these wise men? who is this one pastor ? The wise men 
are the prophets, the one pastor is God?." And Jerome says also 


(! Verba sapientium sicut stimuli, et quasi clavi in altum defixi, que per 
magistrorum consilium [aliter et rectius concilium] data sunt a pastore uno. 
His amplius, fili mi, ne requiras. Vulgate translation. ] 

[2 Qui isti sapientes sunt? Quis iste unus pastor? Sapientes sunt 
prophete, unus pastor Deus.—Bibliothec. Patrum. T. vir. Salonius was 
son of Eucherius of Lyons, and flourished about A. p. 453.] 


1v.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 428 


upon the same place: “ Although several teach the word of God, yet 
there is but one author of that teaching, namely, God." Where he 
refutes the Manicheans, who made the author of the new Testament 
a different being from the author of the old. Others suppose this 
one pastor to be the Holy Spirit, as Vatablus; others, Christ, as 
Mercerus; none the pope, except senseless papists. The place, 
therefore, is not to be understood of the pope, as Bellarmine would 
have it, but of God. But the Jesuit foolishly subjoins, if this be 
understood of the priest of the old Testament, much more of the 
priest of the new Testament. I answer: I do not understand it of 
the priest of the old Testament. But as to the new, who, I be- 
seech you, is the priest of the new Testament, but Christ alone? 
We at least recognise no other High Priest of the new Testament. 
What did ever God, or Christ, or any apostle promise to the pope? 
Let them produce the records, and shew us there, if they can, that 
any such promise was made. 

The fourth place which the Jesuit alleges is taken from Haggai 
ii. 11. The words are these: * Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Ask 
the priests concerning the law." I answer: In the first place, we 
confess this, namely, that the ministers, bishops and doctors, should 
be inquired of concerning the law; and that, when inquiries are 
made, they should answer them ; otherwise they would not do their 
duty. But does it thence follow that they have therefore the 
power of defining anything just as they choose? Far from it. 
Yea, it is incumbent upon them to answer according to the law. 
Whence it is manifest that authority is lodged with the law ; and 
that they have no authority, but only a ministry. Secondly, it will 
follow from this place, that there ought to be not one supreme 
judge of scripture, but many, because God says through the pro- 
phet in the plural number, “Inquire of the priests," not in the 
singular, * Inquire of the priest." 

The fifth place cited by the Jesuit is contained in Malachi ii. 7, 
where are these words: “ The priest's lips shall keep knowledge, 
and they shall require the law from his mouth." I answer: In 
these words is shewn, not what sort of persons the priests always 
would be, but what they always ought to be. Therefore this is a 
fallacy founded upon a figure of speech. There is a precept in these 
words (let the priests be always such), not a promise (they shall be 
always such); for it follows immediately : * But ye have wandered 
from the way and made many to stumble:” as much as to say, Ye 
should have been endowed with knowledge, and skilful in the law, 


424 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


so as to be able to teach others also; but ye are unlearned and 
ignorant of the law, and have caused many to sin and violate my 
laws. Now, if the prophet affirmed this truly of those priests of 
the old Testament, it may certainly be said with even more truth 
of the popish clergy. So Hosea iv. 6, God thus addresses such 
priests as were in that time: ** Because thou hast spurned know- 
ledge, I also will spurn thee from being a priest unto me:;" and 
Hosea v. 1, God calls the priests of that time snares. 

The sixth place which the Jesuit cites (though he hath omitted 
it in his published edition) is Ezek. xiii. 3, where the words are as 
follows : “ Woe to the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit." 
Hence we see, says the Jesuit, that private spirits are not to be 
followed in the interpretation of scripture. I answer: We also 
deny that each man is to follow his own private spirit. But to 
follow scripture itself, and the Spirit of God speaking publicly in 
the scriptures (which we exhort all men to do), is not to follow a 
private spirit. 

The seventh and last place cited by the Jesuit is contained in 
2 Chron. xix. 10, 11, where Jehoshaphat makes Zebadiah judge of 
civil suits or controversies, but Amariah, the pontiff and priest, of 
those matters which pertain to God; and distinguishes the office of 
the pontiff from the office of the king, assigning to the pontiff alone 
the cognisance of the doubtful points about the law. I answer: 
We confess that the functions of king and priest are distinct, and 
that they should not be confounded together. Nor is there need of 
our here making any large reply, because the same answer which 
we made to his second passage will suffice also for this,—namely, 
that, indeed, there ought to be some judges, not of scripture, but 
of suits and controversies, as well ecclesiastical as civil. We say 
that ecclesiastical disputes should be determined by the minister 
out of the divine law, and political disputes by the civil judge out 
of the laws of the state. But meanwhile, to end or determine con- 
troversies is one thing, and to interpret scriptures a very different 
one. And so much in reply to the Jesuit’s first argument. 





v. | QUESTION THE FIFTH. 425 


CHAPTER V. 


AN ANSWER IS GIVEN TO THE TESTIMONIES TAKEN FROM THE 
NEW TESTAMENT. 


His second argument is taken from the authority of the new 
Testament. Now from this he alleges nine testimonies, which we 
must examine severally in their order. 

The first testimony is contained in Matth. xvi. 19, where Christ 
says to Peter, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of 
heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound 
in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed 
in heaven.” From these words the Jesuit infers that the authority 
of interpreting scripture is given to Peter and all his successors, and, 
as it were, the chief judgment of scripture. I answer: We shall 
have to speak elsewhere at large of the power of the keys; how- 
ever, sufficiently for the purposes of the present place, we thus 
briefly reply. First, the keys do not here denote, as the Jesuit 
would have it, the authority of interpreting the scriptures and 
opening all those things which are obscure in scripture, but they 
denote the authority of preaching the gospel. For when the gospel 
. 1s preached, the kingdom of heaven is opened to those who believe, 
but closed against those who will not believe. Secondly, That 
authority of the keys was not committed. to Peter alone, but to the 
rest of the apostles also. For in this place he did not give the 
keys, but only promised that he would give them: but afterwards, 
when he actually gives them (Matth. xxviii. 18, 19; John xx. 21, 
22, 28), he addresses all the apostles equally. Therefore, if the 
pope have the authority of interpreting the scriptures, because the 
keys were given to Peter, then also other bishops and ministers, 
who were successors of the rest of the apostles, received the same 
authority, because the keys were given to the rest of the apostles 
as well as to Peter. Thirdly, Augustine says in his 124th Trac- 
tate upon John, as in many other places, that “ Peter signified 
the universal church!,” when the keys were given to him: there- 
fore this power of the keys was given not to the pope alone, but 
to the whole church. But of this place we shall speak elsewhere 
more copiously. 

The second place which Bellarmine cites from the new Testa- 

[1 Ecclesia quee fundatur in Christo, claves ab eo regni ccelorum accepit, 


id est, potestatem ligandi solvendique peccata.—Cf. Augustin. de Baptism. 
Hur. 17. In Johan. Tract. 50. In Psal. cviii. c. 30.] 


426 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ CH. 


ment is contained in Matth. xvii. 17: “If he will not hear the 
church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.” 
The Lord, says he, speaks of private injuries; but much rather is he 
to be understood of public injuries, such as heresy is: and by the 
church he denotes not the whole body of the faithful, but only the 
pastors and bishops. I answer: Christ speaks there not of the in- 
terpretation of scripture, but of fraternal correction and admonition, 
which those who despise and make light of, are to be brought be- 
fore the church itself; and if they will not hear even the church 
and acquiesce in the church’s admonitions, then they are to be ex- 
communicated. Secondly, I confess that the church 1s to be heard, 
and always to be heard, but under two provisions. rst, it be- 
hoves us to be certain that the church which we hear is the true 
church of Christ, and that from the scripture's testimony ; for this 
cannot be proved by any other means, and otherwise it is not to 
be listened to. Secondly, The church is to be heard, not simply in 
all its dogmas, declarations, decrees, sentences and injunctions, but 
then, and then only, when it enjoins what Christ approves and 
prescribes: for if it enjoin anything of its own, in that it is 
not to be heard. The church is to be credited only on account 
of Christ and Christ’s word: therefore, if it once diverge from 
the mind of Christ, it is not to be heard; yea, we must not be- 
lieve even an angel from heaven, if he teach otherwise than the 
scripture hath delivered, as Paul warns us, Gal. 1. 8. 

The third place of the new Testament cited by the Jesuit is 
Matth. xxii. 2. The words are these: * The scribes and Pha- 
risees sit in Moses’ seat ; all, therefore, that they command you to 
observe, that observe and do.” Therefore, says the Jesuit, if they 
must be obeyed who sit in the chair of Moses, much more they 
who sit in the chair of Peter. I answer: To sit in Moses’ seat is 
to succeed Moses as teacher ; for by the seat of Moses is understood 
the doctrine delivered by Moses and the function of teaching. In 
this chair of Moses the scribes and Pharisees sat, and taught some 
things legitimately and correctly. They were to be heard, there- 
fore, yet not in all, but then only when they taught according to 
the law, and when they followed Moses in their teaching, not in 
whatsoever simply they commanded. For then Christ would have 
contradicted himself; since, in the 6th and 7th chapters of Matthew, 
he refutes their false interpretations, and wholly sets aside certain 
dogmas introduced by them into the church contrary to the true 
sense of the law. Who, indeed, would say that those scribes and 


v.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 4277 


Pharisees always in their teaching sat in Moses' seat, when Moses, 
Deut. xviii. 15, had foreshewn that a prophet like unto him was 
to be raised up by God, whom he warned them to hear; whereas 
the scribes and the Pharisees continually, with all their authority 
and the most pertinacious obstinacy, exclaimed that Christ was not 
to be listened to? Wherefore Christ desired his disciples to beware 
of the leaven of the Pharisees, Matth. xvi. 6. The sum is this: 
That teachers and pastors are always to be heard, when they pre- 
scribe what is right and true, although in the meanwhile they do 
not those things which they enjoin upon others, nor lead a life 
agreeable to their profession: which is of force against those who 
will not use the ministry of wicked pastors. This we readily con- 
cede, which the Jesuit desires to be observed. 

Afterwards the Jesuit remarks out of Cyprian, Epist. Lib. rv. 
Ep. 9!, that Christ never blamed the priests and pontiffs but under 
the name of scribes and Pharisees, lest he should seem to blame 
the chair and priesthood itself. I answer, first, that the right 
itself and function of teaching is in truth not to be blamed, but 
those who do not rightly discharge that function; not the chair, 
but those who abuse the chair. The interpretation of the law was 
divinely instituted. If true, therefore, it is not to be blamed: but 
if false, the perverse interpretation of the law ought to be cen- 
sured.. Christ does not blame the priests when they interpret the 
law correctly; but when they mingled false doctrines and corrupted 
the law by their decisions, he censures them freely and with severity. 
Secondly, I say that the Jesuit misrepresents Cyprian. For that 
father does not write to the effect which this man pretends, as may 
appear by the place itself, if any one choose to examine it. But, 
as to his accommodation of this a fortiori to the chair of Peter, in | 
this fashion, If those were to be heard who sat in the chair of 
Moses, much more those who sit in the chair of Peter; I answer, 
That they are indeed to be heard, but with that previous condition 
before laid down concerning those who sat in the chair of Moses, 
—namely, provided that be true which they teach : otherwise they 
are not to be heard. However, he goes on to object Augustine, 
Epist. 165°, where he says, that in the succession of the Roman 
church, from Peter to Anastasius, who was then bishop of Rome, 
there was no traditor, no Donatist. I answer: That testimony of 
Augustine is nothing to the purpose. For we confess that up to 


[! i. e. in Erasmus’ edition. It is Ep. 66, in bishop Fell’s, and the pas- 
sage referred to will be found in p. 166.] 


[? i e. in Erasmus’ edition, Basil. 1596, T. rr. col. 751.] 


428 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


that time the Roman bishops were devout and good men; but we 
say that afterwards evil men succeeded them and crept into the 
church. Augustine’s meaning is, that the church or Christians are 
not contaminated, if perchance a bishop should have been a tra- 
ditor, since the Lord says, that even bad men are to be heard, and 
we should do not what they do, but what they say. He says 
therefore, firstly, that there was no traditor in that succession from 
Peter to Anastasius: secondly, that even had there been one, yet 
the church would not be injured, since the Lord had provided 
for his church, saying of wicked prelates, Do what they say; do 
not what they do. Augustine neither mentions the argument a 
Jortiori, nor says that the successors of Peter cannot possibly 
misinterpret the law ; but only that, while they teach aright, the 
church is not defiled by their evil life. And so much for the third 
passage. 

The fourth place of the new Testament, which the Jesuit brings 
to confirm his opinion, is written in the last chapter of John, verse 
16, where Christ thus addresses Peter: ** Simon Peter, lovest thou 
me? Feed my sheep." From these words the Jesuit would have 
three observations drawn. ‘The first is, that what was said to 
Peter was said also to Peter's successors. I answer, firstly, that 
these words belong properly to Peter alone. For in these words, 
Peter is restored to his former dignity in the apostolic office, 
from which he had then fallen; and so the fathers themselves have 
interpreted this place: for they say that Peter is therefore thrice 
commissioned to feed, because he had thrice denied Christ, that so 
his triple confession might answer his threefold denial. Secondly, 
I allow that these words, in the way of accommodation or inference, 
may be applied also to the successors of Peter. For if it behoved 
Peter to feed Christ's lambs and sheep, therefore also the suc- 
cessors of Peter should resemble Peter in this respect. Thirdly, 
I say that this appertains as much to all bishops and ministers as 
to the pope of Rome himself; because they all succeed Peter in 
this matter, that 1s, in the preaching of the word, and should imi- 
tate his diligence in feeding the sheep of Christ. 

The second point which the Jesuit observes, and would have us 
to observe, in the above passage, is this ; that the action of feeding in 
this place principally denotes the office of teaching, because here it is 
only rational sheep, that 1s, men, that are fed by the spiritual pastor. 
I answer, that this is correctly enough remarked; and therefore I 
say that these words appertain least of all to the Roman pontiff, 
because he is least of all engaged in teaching. 


| v.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 429 


Thirdly, the Jesuit observes, that sheep in this place denotes all 
the faithful, and therefore all Christians. I answer: Christ does not 
say to Peter, Feed all my sheep; for neither Peter nor any other 
apostle could do that; but he speaks indefinitely, * Feed my sheep.” 
Christ gives the same command to Peter concerning feeding his sheep, 
as he gave to the other apostles, that each, according to the portion 
assigned to him, should feed the flock of Christ. For since to feed 
is, as Bellarmine hath reminded us, to teach, Christ hath thus in 
the last chapter of Matthew, v. 19, equally granted to all his apostles 
the pastoral authority, saying to all indifferently, ** Go, and teach 
all nations.” Therefore, if feeding and teaching be-the same, the 
same authority was granted also to the other apostles as to Peter; 
and if sheep denote all Christians, the other apostles also were com- 
manded to teach all Christians. But that injunction is to be under- 
stood of all the apostles together and conjointly ; not of the several 
apostles separately, because they could not each severally run 
through all nations, and teach all Christians. Hence the Jesuit 
concludes, that the Roman pontiff cannot teach all by preaching, 
which we for our part allow to be most true, (for neither the 
pope, nor any other sole individual can preach to all men ;) but he 
adds, yea, nor yet by writing commentaries; because then (says 
he) we should have to blame many pious popes, who have bestowed 
no pains on this employment. But we will deliver him from this 
apprehension: we freely and of our own accord confess that Christ 
did not mean that method of feeding. Therefore he determines 
that some singular kind of teaching was in these words commended 
to Peter and his successors, namely, one which consisted in esta- 
blishing and decreeing what each person ought to teach and believe. 
I answer: In this way they ascribe to their pope, not a pretorian, 
but absolutely a dictatorial power, such as God claims for Christ 
alone, when he says (Matt. xvii. 5), * Hear him:;" from which 
words Cyprian, Epist. 63, concludes, “that Christ alone is to be 
heard, because of him alone God said, * Hear him; and therefore 
that we need not be solieitous what others said before us, but what 
Christ said, who was before all!" Surely this is an admirable and 
truly singular function of teaching, not to preach, not to write com- 
mentaries, but determine and prescribe what others are to believe! 


[! Quare si solus Christus audiendus est, non debemus attendere quid 
alius ante nos faciendum putaverit, sed quid, qui ante omnes est, Christus 
prior fecerit.—p. 155. ed. Fell.] 


430 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


A monstrous fiction! Who instituted this office, that there should 
be one man who should prescribe what all others should teach, and 
not teach himself? This office is recognised neither by scripture, 
nor the fathers, nor the church. Christ commended nothing to 
Peter alone; and committed to him no such popish species of 
pastorate. For Peter, in fact, both taught, as much as he could, 
by word of mouth, and wrote epistles: which would not have been 
necessary for him to do, if he had been only bound to determine and 
fix what others should teach. 

The fifth place which the Jesuit cites from the new Testament 
is Luke xxii. 32, and contains the words of Christ to Peter a little 
before his death, which are these: “I have prayed for thee, Peter, 
that thy faith fail not." From these words, says the Jesuit, 
Bernard, Epist. 190!, deduces that Peter teaching ex cathedra, 
and consequently also his successors, cannot err; with which Epistle 
the decretals also agree. I determine here nothing of the authority 
of Bernard and the decretal epistles; but as to the matter itself I 
briefly answer, and say, in the first place, that this, whatever it 
was, pertains to Peter alone, and not to his successors: for Christ 
says, “I have prayed for thee, Peter,"— not for thy successors. 
He prayed indeed, doubtless, for the other apostles also, but spe- 
cially for Peter, because he was about to suffer the assault of a 
temptation more perilous than befel the rest, and therefore required 
to be assisted by some peculiar aid of prayer. Secondly, I affirm, 
that this faith, of which Christ here speaks, is true faith, whereby 
one perseveres firm and constant to the end; actually justifying 
faith; in a word, faith of the heart and not of the mouth, as the 
place itself shews, and the comments also of the fathers thereupon. 
But the papists do not mean this faith, but an historical faith, 
which merely holds the true sense of doctrine: for they confess 
that the pope may be an impious and wicked man; but hold never- 
theless that he cannot err in the interpretation of scripture, when- 
soever he seats himself in the chair. Thirdly, if Christ asked this 
for all the Roman pontiffs, that they should be exempt from error, 
then he did not obtain what he asked. For it is certain that many 
Roman pontiffs have erred, even when teaching ex cathedra, that 


{1 Dignum namque arbitror ibi potissimum resarciri damna fidei, ubi non . 
possit fides sentire defectum. Hee quippe hujus prerogativa sedis. Cui 
enim alteri aliquando dictum est, Ego pro te rogavi, Petre, ut non deficiat 
fides tua ? —Bernard. Opp. De Erroribus Abeelard. Preef. p. 52. T. rr. Paris. 
1835.] 


ve] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 431 


is, determining controversies ; as Alphonsus asserts, Contra Heres. 
Lib. 1. c. 42, where he affirms that the pope not only may err, but 
even be a heretic?. The same is written and held by other papists 
also. Then who, I pray you, will be the supreme judge of the 
church, when the supreme pontiff hath fallen into heresy ? Is he a 
fit person to be the supreme judge in religion, and one in whose 
judgment we should acquiese, who may be, and is a heretic, as the 
very papists themselves confess? Surely, never. The supreme 
judge of all controversies must be such an one as can neither err 
nor prove a heretic: and such is Christ himself, that true High 
Priest, and the sacred scripture. But now, since the pope may err 
and fall into heresy,—the possibility of which our adversaries con- 
cede,—what shall we pronounce concerning Christ's prayer? He 
prayed that Peter's faith might not fail, which these men will have 
extend to Peter's successors also. But faith cannot consist with 
heresy. Therefore Christ could not obtain what he sought, if their 
interpretation be received. 

The sixth place which the Jesuit objects out of the new Testa- 
ment is contained in Acts xv. 5, 6, 7, 28; where, upon a question 
arising about the law of Moses and circumcision, the Christians who 
disputed amongst themselves, are not remitted (says the Jesuit) to 
a private spirit, but to a christian council over which Peter pre- 
sided, which came to this conclusion, ver. 28: * It seemed good 
to the Holy Ghost and to us,” &c. Hence the Jesuit gathers, that 
the Holy Spirit is always present in a council where Peter or 
Peter's successors preside. I answer, first, that we do not send 
any one who is in doubt on any matter to his private spirit, neg- 
lecting all means of finding truth, as the Jesuit falsely objects to 
us; but to scripture itself, and the Holy Spirit speaking publicly 
in the scripture, who, we say, ought to be heard, and by whose 
authority we maintain that all controversies should be decided : 
which also was the very thing done in this council. Let the same 
thing, if possible, be now done as was done here. Let the pastors 
and bishops be gathered together to consider and define some 
question not by their own judgment, but by the authority of the 
Holy Spirit speaking in the scriptures. For thus they defined that 
controversy out of the scriptures, that we might understand that the 
supreme judgment is to be given to the scriptures. Nor was there 


[? Omnis homo errare potest in fide, etiamsi Papa sit. He gives as in- 
stances the cases of Liberius and Celestine.—Lugd. 1564.] 
[? See Delahogue, de Ecclesia, pp. 386, et seq. Dublin. 1815.] 


432 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


anything there concluded but by the authority of scripture. Secondly, 
the Jesuit's assertion that Peter presided over this council is false. 
For James presided rather than Peter; for it was in the words 
proposed by the former that the decree was drawn up, as appears 
from verses 18 and 22, and there are no vestiges whatever of a 
precedence or presidential right being assigned to Peter in that 
assembly. As to his attempt to prove that Peter presided from 
the circumstance of his having spoken first, I answer, that although 
Peter's words are recited first by Luke, yet it is plain from verse 
7, that many had spoken before Peter: for it is said there, that 
after long disputing upon both sides Peter rose up. TloAAjs, says 
Luke, oUCNTYTEwSs ryevouevns. Thirdly, Y confess, that the Holy 
Ghost was present and presided in this council, and that this sen- 
tence was that of the Holy Ghost, since it is proved by the testi- 
mony of scripture. But what hath this to do with the popish 
councils over which Peter presides not, and in which the Holy 
Spirit hath no share ? 

The Jesuit’s seventh place is written Gal. ii. 2, where Paul says 
that he, at Jerusalem, compared his gospel cv cois doxovcr, that 
is, with those who were in some estimation, or who were held of 
some value. From this place, says the Jesuit, the fathers conclude 
that the church would not have believed Paul's gospel, if it had not 
been confirmed by Peter: therefore, it was then the privilege of 
Peter, and is now that of Peter's successor, to judge of the doc- 
trine of faith. I answer, first: Paul went to Jerusalem, not to 
meet Peter alone, and compare his gospel with him solely, or 
borrow from him authority, but to treat publicly with the whole 
church concerning that doctrine which he preached. For so, v. 2, 
Kai aveOéunv avrois TO evayyédov, which the old translator 
renders, Et contuli cum illis evangelium, that is, ** with the whole 
church ;” which also is plain from his subjoining, car’ idtav dé Tors 
SokoUgi, “ privately with those who were of reputation:" therefore 
what follows, uy ete kevov Tpéxw 7 €ópapov, “ lest I should run, 
or had run in vain,” pertains no more to Peter than to the whole 
church, or those principal apostles. Secondly, therefore, although 
we should not interpret the place of the whole church, yet we 
cannot interpret it of Peter alone. For Paul says expressly, that 
he compared his gospel not with Peter alone, but with several, 
namely, avy Tots QokoUci, and he afterwards shews who these were, 
namely, James, Peter, and John. Therefore it is false that Paul’s 
gospel was confirmed by Peter alone: it was the privilege of these 


v.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 433 


others, as much as of Peter, to judge concerning doctrine. Thirdly, 
as to the Jesuit/s assertion, that the church would not have believed 
Paul's gospel unless it had been confirmed by Peter, it may bear 
two senses. If he mean, that the church ought not to have be- 
lieved it, unless Peter had approved it, it is false; for the church 
ought always to believe an apostle preaching the truth. But if he 
mean that it would not have believed so readily, I assent: for 
this was the reason why Paul wished to go to Jerusalem, and there 
explain his gospel to those who were there, because some supposed 
that he preached and taught otherwise than the rest of the apostles ; 
which suspicion entertained by many he thus entirely removed. 

The eighth place produced by the Jesuit is contained in 1 Cor. 
xi. 8, 9, &c., where Paul says that “to some is given by the 
Spirit the word of wisdom, to others the word of knowledge, to 
others faith, to others the interpretation of speeches." From this 
place he concludes, that the spirit of interpretation is not given to 
all, and therefore that all cannot interpret the scriptures. I answer, 
this we spontaneously concede. But the Jesuit deceives us by the 
ambiguity of a word. For there is both a public and a private 
interpretation. We confess that all have not the gift of publicly 
interpreting the scriptures; but in private all the faithful, taught 
by the Holy Ghost, can understand the scriptures and recognise 
the true sense of scripture. | 

The ninth and last place, which the Jesuit adduces from the 
new Testament, is contained in 1 John iv. 1, where we are admo- 
nished **not to believe every spirit, but to try the spirits whether 
they are of God:" therefore (says the Jesuit) a private spirit can 
not be the judge or interpreter of scripture, because it is to be 
judged itself. I answer: The Jesuit does not understand the state 
of the question. We do not say that each individual should 
acquiesce in that interpretation which his own private spirit frames 
and dictates to him; for this would be to open a door to fanatical 
tempers and spirits: but we say that that Spirit should be the 
judge, who speaks openly and expressly in the scriptures, and 
whom all may hear; by him we desire that all other spirits, that 
is, all doctrines, (for so the word is to be taken in this place,) should 
be examined. We recognise no publie judge save scripture, and 
the Spirit teaching us in scripture: yet this man speaks as if we 
made the spirit within the judge of others; which should never be 
done. For we are not so mad or foolish as to deal thus: You 
ought to acquiesce in this doctrine, because my spirit judges it to 


[ WHITAKER.] ae 


434 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


be true; but we say, You should receive this doctrine because the 
Holy Spirit in the scriptures hath taught us thus to think and to 
believe. 

Let it suffice to have said thus much against the Jesuit’s second 
argument, which is that drawn from the authority of the new 
Testament. 





CHAPTER VI. 
OF THE THIRD ARGUMENT OF OUR ADVERSARIES. 


His third general argument is from the practice of the church 
in councils, and the testimonies of the fathers: and here he makes 
a large enumeration of councils by which controversies were de- 
cided. I answer, that I do not understand what concern all these 
have with the argument. For we allow that it is a highly conve- 
nient way of finding the true sense of scripture, for devout and 
learned men to assemble, examine the cause diligently, and investi- 
gate the truth; yet with this proviso, that they govern their 
decision wholly by the scriptures. Such a proceeding we, for our 
parts, have long wished for; for it is attended with a twofold 
advantage: first, that what is sought by many is found the more 
readily ; second, that errors, and heretics the patrons of errors, 
are the more easily repressed, when they are condemned by the 
common consent and judgment of a great number. This course, 
however, is not open to us in all controversies and at all times: 
for one cannot always, when in doubt of the interpretation of a 
passage, immediately convoke a council. We shall have a second 
opportunity of speaking about these matters, and therefore I now 
answer all with this one word; that, indeed, the weightiest contro- 
versies have been determined and settled in councils, but not by 
the absolute authority of the council itself, but by the judgment 
and authority of scripture in the council. Pious bishops never 
assembled to define a point themselves by their own authority, but 
by that of scripture. Therefore all religious councils have ascribed 
the supreme decision to the scriptures. Such we see to have been 
the case in Acts xv.; for there the maintainers of circumcision were 
refuted out of the Law of Moses. So the Novatians were refuted 
by authority of scripture. So the Anabaptists, as is plain from 
Augustine. So finally the Arians, in the council of Nice, were 


vi. | QUESTION THE FIFTH, 435 


refuted and condemned by the authority of scripture. For thus 
the emperor Constantine addresses the fathers assembled in that 
Synod: ‘There are the prophetic and apostolic books, which 
plainly teach us what should be believed. Laying aside, therefore, 
all hostile feelings of enmity, let us derive from the inspired scrip- 
tures, Avowv, the solution or decision of those matters about which 
this controversy hath arisen!" This is the very thing which we 
demand. Since, then, councils, whenever they are good and pious, 
follow the scriptures, it is manifest that the supreme authority of 
judging belongs to the scriptures. 

The Jesuit proceeds to cite the Roman pontiffs, and emperors 
and fathers in great number, concernmg whom also we will briefly 
reply in order. The popes alleged are, Damasus, Epist. 3. ad Ste- 
phanum; Innocent. I. in Epist. ad Concil. Carthag. et Milevit. apud 
August. 91 and 93?; Leo I. Epist. 81 and 89; Gelasius, Epistol. ad 
Episcopos Dardanie ; Gregory, Lib. iv. Ep. 52. "These instruct us 
that weighty causes, especially of faith, pertain to the cognisance of 
the apostolie see. I answer, first, that formerly weighty causes were 
referred to the Roman church by the agreement and arrangement 
of the bishops, for the better maintenance of the peace of the church, 
and the easier repression of heretics and schismatics; as also be- 
cause it seemed unjust to determine anything which concerned the 
public profession of the faith, without consulting the bishop of 
Rome, who occupied the principal see. Hence it came to pass that 
by degrees those prelates seized and arrogated to themselves still 
greater authority, and laid claim to a divine right, the catholies 
meanwhile raising no very strong reclamations, as supposing that 
they possessed in the Roman church a great protection against 
heretics. Secondly, that these decretal Epistles of the popes 
Damasus, Julius, and others, are merely supposititious, of no sense 
or genius, but wholly made up of ignorance, arrogance, and anti- 
christianism. Erasmus deems the Epistles of Innocent unworthy 
of so great a prelate, and misses in them “style and genius and 
erudition?," Gelasius everywhere exaggerates the dignity and 


[| Vide supra. ] 

[? Aug. Opp. T. rr. p. 88. Paris. 1555. See Coke, Censura quorundam 
Scriptt. Vett. p. 219. (Helmstadt. 1683). Papebroch himself (Catalog. Ro- 
man. Pontific. p. 61. ap. Cave, Hist. Liter. Art. Innocentius I.) confesses that 
many of this pope's epistles may be proved spurious by chronology. | 

[3 In hac epistola et dictionem et ingenium tali dignum Presule deside- 
rare cogimur.—Censura in Ep. xciii. inter Epp. Augustini ut supra, p. 86. 2.] 


28—2 


436 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


privileges of his see without any moderation. Leo and Gregory, 
indeed, write with considerably more modesty, and yet transgress 
far and widely the limits of christian humility. Thirdly, that 
these bishops are not to be heard in their own cause, who were 
manifestly too deeply interested on their own side, and too deeply 
prejudiced in their own favour, even to the manifest injury of 
other churches and bishops. 

Let us come now to emperors, the first of whom is Constantine. 
He, says Bellarmine, would not sit down in the Nicene synod be- 
fore the bishops had given him leave to be seated!. So Eusebius 
tells us in his life of Constantine, Lib. nr.: which conduct shewed 
that he was not president of that council. In the Epistle also to all 
churches, given in that same place, he says: ‘“ Whatever is decreed 
in the holy assemblies of the bishops, should wholly be ascribed to 
the divine will" Ambrose says of him, Ep. 32: ** Constantine 
left the judgment free to the bishops?." And Augustine, Epist. 
162, writes that the Donatists were by him referred to their own 
proper judge, Melchiades bishop of Rome*, I answer, that these 
things are irrelevant to the matter in hand. We do not say that 
Constantine was president of the Nicene council, in which, perhaps, 
he was never present more than once. But what then? Neither 
was the Roman pontiff president, as we shall prove in its proper 
place. That he did not sit down until desired by the bishops, 
proved his singular urbanity and respect for Christ's bishops,— 
nothing else. As to his writing in his epistles to the churches, that 
what the holy assemblies of bishops determine should be ascribed 
to the divine will, we acknowledge it. For holy bishops deter- 
mine nothing but what ihe words of sacred scripture sanction, 
which is the rule they follow in their decrees; otherwise they are 
not holy. Neither are all the decrees of all councils to be esteemed 
divine, but those which are supported by the authority of scripture, 


[1 od mpórepov ij robs émwokómovs emwedoa exabice. — Euseb. de Vita Con- 
stant. Lib. m1. c. 10. p. 402. n. Ed. Vales. Paris. 1678. ] 

[2 wav yap et tt & ay ev rois ayiows rÀv émuakómov avveüpiow mpárrera, rovro 
mpos Tv Óeíav BovtAnow xev THY avadopav. Ibid. cap. 20. p. 407. c.] 

[3 Sicut factum est sub Constantino auguste memorize principe, qui 
nullas leges ante preemisit, sed liberum dedit judicium sacerdotibus.— Class. 
I. Ep. xxi. n. 15. p. 339. T. viri. Paris. 1839. | 

[4 Neque enim ausus est Christianus imperator tumultuosas et fallaces 
querelas suscipere, ut de judicio episcoporum qui Rom: sederant ipse 
judicaret: sed alios, ut dixi, episcopos dedit.—Al. Ep. xliii. cap. 7. T. ir. 


p. 97.] 


vi. ] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 437 


as we shall shew hereafter in its fitting place. What says Ambrose 
of Constantine? What if Constantine left the judgment free to the 
bishops, and himself prescribed nothing to them: will it therefore 
follow that they should not judge according to the scriptures ? 
Furthermore, Augustine does not write that Constantine referred 
the Donatists to the bishop of Rome as their proper judge: for 
the bishop of Rome was not the proper judge of the Donatists ; and 
if he were, Constantine would have compelled them to acquiesce in 
his sentence : whereas afterwards he assigned other arbitrators, and 
finally took cognisance of the cause himself; which fact Bellarmine 
omitted, because plainly repugnant to the plea which he had under- 
taken to defend. 

The second is Gratian, in his Epistle to the bishop of Aquileia, 
in which he allows “ the cognisance of altercations" to the bishops?. 
I reply : Who denies that the bishops can judge of such causes? or 
what hath this to do with a question about the interpretation of 
scripture? The third is the younger Theodosius, in an Epistle to 
the council of Ephesus, wherein he says that those who are not of 
the episcopal order “should not intermeddle in ecclesiastical 
matters." I answer: There will be another place for discussing 
the question, whether it be lawful for none but bishops to treat of 
ecclesiastical affairs : meanwhile, what does this contribute towards 
confirming the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff in the inter- 
pretation of the scriptures? The fourth is Martian, who, L. Nemo. 
C. de Summa Trinit. declares that nothing “ once adjudicated should 
be gone back upon or subjected to fresh disputation’.” I answer, 
that whatever things have been once adjudicated in a synod accord- 
ing to the scriptures cannot be called a second time in question 
without injury to the synod. But must, therefore, whatever judg- 
ment the Roman pontiff hath passed prevail even against the plain 
evidence of scripture? The fifth is Valentinian the elder, who 
permits bishops to assemble when they would, and denies that such 


[5 Neque enim controversie dubiz sententiz rectius poterant expediri, 
quam si oborte altereationis interpretes ipsos constituissemus antistites.— 
Rescript. Gratian. Imp. ad Conc. Aquileg. inter Opp. Ambrosii. T. vin. 
p. 230. Paris. 1839.] 

[6 aOéuirov yap Tov py ToU karaAóyov TOv dywerárov emioKdT@Y rvyxávovra 
rois ékkAnoiagTikois cKkéupagw émiutyvvaÜOa., Ap. Labb. et Cossart. Concill. 
T. 11. coll. 442, 3.] 

[7 Nam et injuriam faeit judicis reverendissime synodi, si quis semel 
judicata ae recte disposita revolvere et publice disputare contenderit.— Cod, 
Justinian. Lib. r. Tit. iv. l. 111. Lugd. 1585.] 


438 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


matters appertain to him; as we see in Sozomen. Lib. vr. c. 7'. I 
answer: Valentinian denies that it was lawful for him pera Aaov 
TeTa'yuéro TouaUTa moAvrpa^*yuovetv, ** who was ranked amongst 
the laity to busy himself with such matters:" what then? The 
Roman bishop is the judge of all interpretations of scripture and all 
controversies? Surely a beautiful conclusion! The sixth is the 
emperor Basil?, in the 8th synod, and the seventh, Theodoric, king 
of the Goths, in the fourth Roman synod under Symmachus?; who 
say nothing more than that laymen should not presume to decide 
church-controversies, but should leave them to the bishops. Yet it 
does not follow from this, either that the bishop of Rome is the 
supreme interpreter of scripture, or that bishops can define contro- 
versies of faith and religion any otherwise than out of scripture. 
Let us now see how the case stands with the fathers. In the 
first place he objects to us Ireneus, contra Her. Lib. m. c. 2, 
where, he says, that father lays it down that controversies cannot 
be determined out of the scriptures alone, because they are variously 
expounded by heretics; and that therefore, in the next chapter, he 
sends the heretics against whom he disputes to the Roman church, 
and shews them that controversies are to be determined by the 
doctrine of that church*. I answer: Whoever will look at the place 
itself in Irenzeus, will readily perceive the fraud and prevarication 
of the Jesuit. For there Irenzeus finds fault with those heretics 
with whom he was engaged, on the very score of not receiving the 
scriptures, but rather pressing and adhering to tradition. Now 
their reason was, that scripture admits various senses and no fixed 
interpretation. This the Jesuit ascribes to Irenzeus, as if it were 
his own opinion; whereas Irenzus in that place is not speaking his 


[1 'Enol uév, €x, pera aod rerayuévo ov Oeuts Tovad’ra mroAvmpaypovetv* oi 
dé iepeis ois rovrou péder Kad” éavrobs brn BovdAovrar cvvíroecav.—p. 525, B. 
Paris. 1686. ] 

[2 Labb. et Cossart. Concill. T. viri. col. 1157.] 

(3 Ib. T. rr. col. 1333.] — 

[* Cum enim ex scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur ip- 
sarum scripturarum, quasi non recte habeant, neque sint ex auctoritate, et 
quia varie sint dicte, et quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his qui 
nesciant traditionem.—p. 230. Paris. 1675. In the next chapter, p. 232, we 
find: Maxime et antiquissime et omnibus cognite, a gloriosissimis duobus 
apostolis Petro et Paulo Rome fundatz ct constitutze ecclesie, eam quam 
habet ab apostolis traditionem et annunciatam hominibus fidem, per succes- 
siones episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos, indicantes, confundimus 
omnes eos, &c.] 


vi.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 439 


own sentiments, but proposing the judgment and opinion of the 
heretics, and censuring it. And as to cap. 3 of the same book, 
Irenzus does, indeed, send those heretics to the Roman church, and 
with good reason; because that church was then the most illustrious 
and noble of all churches, and retained, at that time, the tradition 
of the apostles uncorrupted. But it hath now fallen, and become 
much changed from what it was in the early ages. 

Next he objects Athanasius, in his Epistle to the Hermits, 
wherein, speaking of the Arian Constantius, he says: ‘“‘ When was 
it ever heard that the judgment of the church received its authority 
from the emperor??" I answer: The legitimate judgments of the 
church upon matters which concern faith borrowed their force and 
authority from none but from God himself. "Therefore, whoever as- 
sumes the right of determining concerning the faith as it may seem 
good to himself, as the impious Constantius did, he seizes upon divine 
authority, even though he were the Roman pontiff, or all pontiffs 
together; since it is their duty not to pronounce according to their 
own pleasure, but to unfold what God hath determined, and that 
not otherwise but by the scriptures; so as always to acknowledge 
that their opinion is to be squared by the rule of scripture, and ap- 
proved as it accords with scripture. 

In the third place, he objects Basil, Epist 52, to Athanasius, 
where he says that it seems to him advisable that the Roman 
bishop should be written to, that he might of his own authority send 
some persons into the East to dissolve the acts of the council of Ri- 
mini?, I answer: I confess, indeed, that Basil writes that he thought 
this advisable; but what is that to the purpose? Ought not catholic 
bishops to condemn heretical opinions, and provide for the peace and 
tranquillity of the church? Basil requires that a message should be 
sent to the Roman bishop in order that, as it was difficult to send 
persons * by publie decree and consent," amo Kowov kai cwvvoóioU 
&o^yuaTos, he might of himself choose and send certain men fit for 
the office, and who understood the whole transactions at Rimini in 


[5 T. 1. p. 371. Ed. Benedict. ] 
[6 "Eqavn 06 tiv dxddovboy éemioreihae TO emiokdr@ Pops, emoxeacba rà 
^ ^ e ^ ^ 
evravda, kai Sodvar yvojv* wa émeibày ard kowoU kal ovvodicod Oóyparos ámo- 
An A v x ^ > 16 > A > ^ ^ A ^ > , 
oradjvat tivas 0vgkoAov rÀv ékeiÜev, abróv avOevrnaa mepl To mpaypa, ékAe£á- 
» ^ 
pevov avdpas ikavovs pev ddouropias mévovs Oteveykeiv, ikavous 0€ mpadrnte kal 
> , n A > , ^ x e ^ > , A * 
dTOvoia rovs rovs evdsaotpépovs tav map nu vovOernoa: emitndciws Sé kai 
oikovopukQs kexpnuévous TO Ady@, kal mávra &xovras pel?” éavràv và ev Apiuitvo 
mempaypéva, émi Avoet TOY KATA avayKnY éket yevouévov. — 'T. II. p. 825. B.] 


440 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. (on. 


Italy, ézi Avoee TOV KaT avaryKny exer yevouerwr, “to dissolve 
what was there done by force;" that is, inform the people that it 
was not reason or scripture, but violence and fraud, that prevailed in 
that council, and so impair the authority of that council. What 
could any one collect from this to confer the supreme right and 
dictatorship in the interpretation of all parts of scripture upon the 
bishop of Rome? 

The fourth father whom he objects to us is Nazianzen, in his 
oration upon his flight!, and again in his oration to his panic- 
stricken fellow-citizens?, where there is nothing whatever to favour 
the opinion of our adversaries. He bids them not **to feed the 
pastor, or judge the judge:" not as if the bishops were allowed to 
establish any thing just as they pleased, while the people were 
forbidden to contradict or examine it; but because rashness in judg- 
ing is to be guarded against. For the people, if they desire not 
to be involved in error and perdition, are bound to judge heretical 
bishops who discharge the office of pastors and judges. 

Chrysostom follows in the fifth place, who, in his last Homily 
upon St John, says that Peter was set as a master over the whole 
world by Christ?. I answer, but not as sole master. Neither does 
this avail anything towards establishing the pope’s authority. For 
Chrysostom does not say that the pope was set as a master over 
the world. 

Cyril is the sixth, whom Thomas cites in his small treatise* on 
the errors of the Greeks. I answer, that testimony is not extant 
in Cyril's Thesaurus, which Thomas hath cited against the Greeks, 
so that it may justly be asked where Thomas found it. It is some 
apocryphal and supposititious testimony, such as the rest upon which 
the papal primacy is founded. 

Bellarmine now proceeds to the Latin fathers, and, in the 
seventh place, he objects Tertullian in his book of Prescriptions 
against Heretics, where he teaches that we should not dispute 

B Or 1.2. pet]. 

[2 Orat. XVII. T. 1. p. 265.] 

(3 Chrysostom there says of Peter, rv mpocraciay évertatevOn rv aded- 
gov, in v. 21. But he adds afterwards of him and the other apostles 
generally, emedav yàp e€ueddov ths oikoupevns Tiv éÉmwrpom?v avad<Eacba, oix 
€deu cupmremA€y Oat Aovróv GdAnAots, in v. 23.] 

(4 Dicit enim Cyrillus in libro Thesaurorum: Ut membra maneamus in 
capite nostro, apostolico throno Romanorum pontificum, a quo nostrum est 


quaerere quid credere et quid tenere debemus.— Thom: Aquinat. Opp. 
T. xvir. p. 9. Venet. 1593.] 


vi. | QUESTION THE FIFTH, 441 


against heretics out of scripture’. I answer: Tertullian says that 
some heretics do not receive some parts of scripture; that against 
such we must not dispute out of the scriptures, but use other argu- 
ments. This we also allow, conceding that with such men, who 
deny and reject the scriptures, we must argue not from the scrip- 
tures but from the testimony of the church, or contend in some 
other way. For he who disputes only of scripture against those 
who deny the scripture loses his pains; and who denies that the 
truth was specially to be sought for in the apostolic churches ? 
Can it be proved from this that the Roman bishop is the supreme 
judge of controversies and interpreting of scripture ? 

To Tertullian succeeds Cyprian, Lib. 1. Epist. 3, where he says 
that ‘heresies and schisms arise from this, that God's priest is not 
obeyed, and that one priest at a time in the church, and one judge at 
a time, is not considered as representing Christ®.” I answer, that 
this priest and judge is not the sole bishop of Rome, as Bellarmine 
feigns, but each catholic bishop of the church: for Cyprian is now 
speaking of himself, against whom the Novatians had created another 
bishop, and introduced schism and heresy into that church. So 
Lib. rv. Epist. 10: ** Thence,” says he, “schisms and heresies have 
sprung and do spring, that the bishop, who is but one and presides 
over the church, is despised by the arrogant presumption of certain 
persons.” He speaks of the particular bishops of particular churches, 
to whom even Bellarmine himself does not ascribe an absolute 
power of interpreting scripture. And even should we concede that 
Cyprian speaks of Cornelius, what will follow but that he was the 
sole priest of the Roman church, not of all churches? Ambrose, 
indeed, Ep. 32, to Valentinian® the younger, blames him severely 
and justly for wresting the cognisance of matters of faith from the 
catholic bishops and assuming it himself. For who can doubt that 
it belongs to the bishops and pastors to judge of matters of faith ? 


[^ Hune igitur potissimum gradum obstruimus, non admittendos eos ad 
illam de scripturis disputationem, si hee sunt illze vires illorum, uti ne eas 
habere possint. c. xv. p. 11.] 

[$ Neque enim aliunde hereses oborte sunt aut mota sunt schismata, 
quam inde quod sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur, nec unus in ecclesia ad 
tempus sacerdos et ad tempus judex vice Christi cogitatur. Ep. lix. p. 129. 
Ed. Fell.] 

[7 Inde schismata et heereses oborte sunt, dum episcopus, qui unus est et 
ecclesiz preeest, superba quorundam presumptione contemnitur.] 

[5 Quando audisti, clementissime imperator, in causa fidei laicos de 
episcopo judicasse ?— Class. 1. Ep. xxi. n. 4. p. 337. T. vi. Paris. 1839.] 


442 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


But will this make the bishop of Rome supreme judge, or permit 
bishops to judge as they please ? 

Augustine is next objected to us, who, in his first book against 
Cresconius the grammarian, cap. 33, says, * Let him who fears he 
may be deceived, consult the church!" I answer: This we allow, 
but under the condition which Augustine subjoins; namely, that 
that church is to be consulted * which the scripture points out." 
For otherwise than by the scriptures it cannot certainly be known 
which is the true church. We say that the church should be con- 
sulted in every cause which concerns faith, and that the church 
ought to consult the scriptures. And truly they are justly de- 
ceived who do not consult the church, and obey her pious counsels 
and admonitions. But, although pious doctors are to be sought 
for and inquired of, and all proud and perilous temptations to be 
avolded, as Augustine hath reminded us in the Prologue to his 
books of Christian Doctrine; yet we should consider both what 
they answer, and how truly, lest our faith should rest upon 
human teaching rather than upon divine testimony. Thai is not 
really faith, which is founded upon the authority of men ; and upon 
such authority is founded whatever depends not on the word and 
voice of God. 

But Jerome, says Bellarmine, writes thus to Damasus: * I shall 
not be afraid to speak of three hypostases, if you desire me?." 
Therefore he entirely acquiesced in the authority of the Roman 
pontiff. I answer: Jerome was, indeed, in great doubt and anxiety, 
whether he ought to say with the Greek bishops that there were 
three hypostases. He recognised three persons: but this term 
vroocTacis he regarded with suspicion, supposing that perhaps some 
poison lay concealed in it; and when constantly in the writings of 
the Greeks meeting with the assertion that there are three hypo- 
stases, he feared that he might involve the doctrine of three Gods. 
Upon this subject he consulted the bishop of Rome, being himself 
in total seclusion, and having, in that place where he was, no learn- 
ed man whose advice he could ask. He was the more inclined to 
consult him rather than any other person, because he was himself 
a presbyter of the Roman church, and Damasus, as bishop of that 


{2 Ut quoniam sancta scriptura fallere non potest, quisquis falli metuit 
hujus obscuritate questionis, eandem ecclesiam de illa consulat, quam sine 
ulla ambiguitate sancta scriptura demonstrat.— T. vu. p. 168. Paris. 1637.] 

[2 Discernite, si placet, obsecro: non timebo tres hypostases dicere, si 
jubetis.—Ep. lvi. Opp. T. nr. p. 131. Basil. 1565. ] 


vi] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 443 


church, was in the best condition to know the sense of that church 
which Jerome would desire to follow. The controversy, therefore, 
was about words, not things: for Jerome was perfectly master of 
the thing meant, but wished to know what Damasus and the Roman 
church thought of the expression, because he was desirous of acqui- 
escing in the consent and custom of that church. 

In the next place, as to what Sulpitius Severus tells us, Historie 
Sacr. L. 1r., of Martin, how he told the emperor Maximus, “ that it 
was impious for the temporal judge to take cognisance of an eccle- 
siastical cause?;" I answer, that Martin did indeed assert the 
church's right to judge of doctrine, and allowed no such right to the 
emperor. And who denies that this judgment belongs to the bishops? 
But must therefore the Roman pontiff alone engage in such judg- 
ments, or be the supreme judge of the church and interpreter of 
scripture? Bellarmine should consider what enormous licence he 
allows himself in controversy. There is a wide gap between such 
premises and any conclusion suitable to the question proposed. 

Furthermore, Prosper, who comes next, does not, as Bellar- 
mine affirms, prove, in the end of his book against Cassian, that 
the Pelagians are heretics on no other score than because they 
had been condemned by the Roman bishops. For throughout the 
whole of the book he had been contending against the Pelagians 
with arguments for the most part taken from Augustine; and then 
in the end he mentions how the Pelagians had been condemned by 
Innocent, Zosimus, Boniface and Celestne. Is this nothing else 
but proving that the Pelagians were hereties upon no other account 
than because they had been condemned by the Roman bishops ? 

Afterwards the Jesuit alleges Vincentius Lirinensis, who, in his 
commentary, teaches us that besides the scriptures we should apply 
“the rule of catholic understanding*." I answer: that each man 
is not to be left to his own private opinions, but that the analogy 
of truth is to be retained, and “ the line of prophetic and apostolical 
interpretation.” What then is this? He shews, says Bellarmine, 
that it is the decrees of councils, the consent of the fathers, and 


[3 Namque tum Martinus apud Treveros constitutus non desinebat 
increpare Ithacium, ut ab accusatione desisteret: Maximum orare, ut san- 
guine infelicium abstineret: satis superque sufficere ut episcopali sententia 
heretici judieati ecclesiis pellerentur: novum esse et inauditum nefas, ut 
causam ecclesiz judex seculi judicaret.— p. 161. Amstel. 1641.] 

[* Idcirco multum necesse est, propter tantos tam varii erroris anfractus, 
ut prophetiez et apostoliez interpretationis linea secundum ecclesiastici et 
catholiei sensus normam dirigatur.—Commonit. c. 2. p. 325. Paris. 1663.] 


444 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


such like. We also value these things highly; yet not promis- 
cuously, but with discrimination. For the decrees of councils are 
not always perfectly entire, and the consent of the fathers can 
never be proved. But wherefore did Vincentius say nothing of 
the Roman pontiff, when he was disputing of the true interpre- 
tation of scripture? Who does not perceive that this glorious 
interpreter of scripture was unknown to Vincentius ? 

Gregory follows, who, Lib. v. Epist. 25, says: * We know that 
the most pious lords keep strict discipline, observe order, respect 
the canon, and intermeddle not with the business of the priest!." 
I answer: Pious princes use not to meddle with the affairs of the 
priesthood, and this is said to be unlawful for them to do. But 
what is this to the Jesuit’s cause? Will it therefore follow, that 
the supreme right of expounding scripture and the final judgment 
of all controversies appertains to the bishop of Rome? These testi- 
monies respect rather another question, whether a prince ought to 
undertake the care of religion. But such is the acuteness of the 
Jesuits, that they can prove anything by anything. 

I pass over Anselm and Bernard, and excuse them, considering 
the time they lived in, if perchance they ascribed some extravagant 
prerogatives to the Roman pontiff. If he had produced even more 
numerous and stringent arguments than these, yet, since they are 
merely human, they could make no reason of demonstrative force. 

And so much upon the Jesuit's third argument. 





CHAPTER VII. 
OF THE JESUIT'S FOURTH ARGUMENT. 


His fourth and last argument is drawn from the reason of the 
thing. God, says he, was not ignorant that there would be in his 
church at all times many controversies and difficult questions con- 
cerning the faith. Therefore he would not have well provided in 
things necessary for his church, if he had not established and left 
to it some judge of those controversies. But God hath excellently 
well provided for his church always, especially in respect of things 
necessary. Therefore he hath left some judge. I answer: God 


[1 Notum est piissimos dominos disciplinam dirigere, ordinem servare, 
canones venerari, et se sacerdotalibus negotiis non miscere.—Opp. T. I. p. 
838. Basil. 1564.] 


vit.] QUESTION THE FIFTH, 445 


hath, indeed, left his church a judge; but the question now is, who 
is that judge ? upon which a controversy is raised between us and 
the papists. We say that the judge is the Holy Spirit speaking in 
the seriptures. But the Jesuit draws up three assertions upon this 
subject. First, he says that this judge is not some spirit of private 
revelation. I answer: We concede this. The authority of such a 
spirit is secret, hidden and private; but the judge sought should 
possess a publie, open, and universally notorious authority. Second- 
ly, the Jesuit affirms that this judge is no secular prince. I answer: 
We concede this also. For we ascribe the supreme decision solely 
to the scripture and the Holy Spirit; and yet the papists object to 
us that other sentiment and opinion, as if it were ours. Thirdly, 
the Jesuit concludes that the supreme judge must be an ecclesias- 
tical prince, such as is the Roman pontiff. I answer: Whatever, 
then, the papists talk so vauntingly of fathers and of councils, yet 
it is to their ecclesiastical prince, that is to the pope, that all 
controversies are finally referred, and with that prince and supreme 
interpreter rests the whole meaning of scripture and the right of 
adjudicating upon it. But we do not acknowledge that prince, 
whom Christ never constituted; and we say that the scripture 
itself publicly set forth and propounded is its own interpreter. 

It remains now that we see with what sort of reasons he en- 
deavours to overturn this opinion of ours. Now the Jesuit proves 
that seripture cannot be its own interpreter, by three arguments. 
His first reason is, because scripture hath various meanings; and, 
therefore, since it cannot speak, it cannot inform us which of these 
is the true and genuine sense. I answer: Scripture, as we have 
already said, hath one simple meaning, which may be clearly 
gathered also from the scriptures themselves: and although the 
scripture hath not voice and speech like a man, yet does it speak 
plainly as a law; and God himself speaks in the scripture, and 
scripture is on that account styled the word of God. With no less 
certainty, therefore, may we elicit a true meaning from scripture, 
than if God himself were to address us with an audible voice. Do 
we then desire a better judge and interpreter than God himself? 
He who reads the letter of a friend, does he fail to understand his 
friend’s meaning, because the letter itself does not speak, or because 
he does not actually hear his friend speaking to him? No man in 
his senses would say that. Since the scriptures, then, are as it 
were a letter sent to us from God, we can from them understand 
the will of God, although they do not speak to us, * The heavens" 
(says the prophet, Ps, xix.) “declare the glory of God;" and yet 


446 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ CH. 


they speak not: the scriptures have a yet more glorious and dis- 
tinct utterance. ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and 
the earth.” What? shall we not know the meaning of these words, 
unless we consult the pope? And no less plain are all the chief 
articles of our religion. 

The second argument wherewith the Jesuit proves that scrip- 
ture cannot be its own judge and interpreter, is this: because in 
every well-constituted state there is careful distinction made be- 
tween the law and the judge; and therefore the scripture cannot 
be the judge, since it is the law. I answer: In no commonwealth 
should any judge be constituted, who might expound the law ac- 
cording to his own will and pleasure: for then what will be the 
use of laws? On the contrary, the judge, in every state, is 
bound to expound the law by the law; otherwise he will prove an 
unrighteous magistrate, if he follow his own mind and not the law. 
So in the church bishops and pastors ought to interpret scripture 
and expound the will of God, but yet by the law of God itself, that 
is, the scriptures: although, in truth, we allow to no man so much 
authority in respect of the scriptures as may be ascribed to the 
judge of civil matters in regard of the laws of men. Human laws 
may with much greater safety be entrusted to a single judge than 
the divine law. The divine law is both the judgment and the 
judge, the interpreter and the rule. For what rule shall that 
judge whom the papists feign propose to himself in the interpreta- 
tion of scripture? Hath he none? That, I hope, they dare not 
affirm. Now if he follow any rule, it must needs be either a 
public or a private one. If he follow a private and hidden rule, it 
should not be received, because doubtful and uncertain, and no 
better than the private testimony of the Spirit; whereas every rule 
ought to be certain and known. But if it be a publie rule which 
he follows, it must needs be scripture: for what other can it be? 
Now he that follows scripture as his rule, and squares and conforms 
his interpretations to it, confesses that he hath no power to inter- 
pret the scriptures otherwise than as the rule of scripture itself 
prescribes. Thus he does not judge of the sense of scripture with 
an absolute authority, but submits his judgment to the scriptures. 

The Jesuit's third reason upon this subject is to this effect: A 
judge ought to have a coactive authority; otherwise his judgment 
will have no force, nor will any one acquiesce in his sentence. I 
answer: Scripture, indeed, hath no external power of compulsion, 
but only internally compels the mind to assent. But if there were 
any external judge of this sort, who could compel all persons, then 


vil. ] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 447 


there would be no controversies, which yet have always been and 
always will be, and now too are almost infinite. The Roman pontiff 
can indeed compel in one sense, that is, terrify, and restrain by fear, 
and punish with death; but he cannot compel us to believe that 
this is the will of God, and to receive the scripture as the voice of 
God. It is the Holy Spirit who persuades us to believe this, who 
leads our minds to form true opinions, and makes us hold them firm 
even to our last gasp. The pontiff, therefore, is not the judge, 
because he cannot compel us to believe. For that coaction of his, 
which he uses when he gags our mouths, and strangles our very 
throats, so as to prevent us even from muttering, is mere violence, 
and can avail nothing without the inward persuasion of the Holy 
Spirit. Yea, unless that inward persuasion of the Holy Spirit be 
superinduced, the mind can never securely and resolutely acquiesce 
in any interpretation. 

So far then we have spoken of the arguments of the papists; 
which are, for the most part, irrelevant, being directed against the 
private spirit, which is not the judge whom we recognise. 





CHAPTER VIII. 


OUR ARGUMENTS WHEREBY WE PROVE THAT THE SUPREME DECISION 
IN INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE BELONGS NOT TO THE CHURCH, 
BUT TO THE SCRIPTURES THEMSELVES AND TO THE HOLY 
SPIRIT. 


Our opinion is, that the supreme decision and authority in the 
interpretation of scripture should not be ascribed to the church, but 
to the scripture itself, and to the Holy Spirit, as well speaking 
plainly in the scriptures as also secretly confirming the same in our 
hearts. This opinion of ours we now establish by some arguments. 

Our first argument depends upon the conclusion of the third 
question. For if scripture cannot otherwise be known but by scrip- 
ture and the Holy Spirit, which was the conclusion we have arrived 
at already, in the third question; then certainly neither should we 
seek the sense of scripture from any other source than from scrip- 
ture and the Holy Spirit speaking in scripture. For the sense of 
scripture is the scripture itself. Hither, therefore, may be referred 
all those arguments which we used in the third question. 


448 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


Our second argument is this: That which alone hath power to 
engender faith, hath alone the supreme authority of interpreting 
the scriptures, and defining and deciding all controversies. Now it 
is only the scripture and the Holy Spirit that have this power. 
Therefore this authority is to be ascribed only to them. The 
major is sufficiently plain. For faith (says Paul, Rom. x. 17) 
*cometh by hearing," that is, from the sense of scripture duly per- 
ceived. Now the sense of scripture is only to be sought from scrip- 
ture itself and the Holy Spirit. The minor is also manifest: for it 
is only the Holy Ghost that can infuse into our hearts that saving 
faith which is therefore called by the schoolmen Fides infusa. 
The church cannot infuse this faith: for that faith which we obtain 
from the church is not called infused, but acquired, and the papists 
themselves allow that it is not sufficient to a full assurance or cer- 
tain persuasion. The gospel is called “the power of God unto 
salvation," Rom. i. 16; and if this be true, then it is certainly 
sufficient to engender faith. And the apostle testifies that he 
preached the gospel without any ornaments of speech, in order that 
it might be evident that the people’s faith was the mere result of 
the gospel itself. Faith, therefore, is not the gift of the church, 
except improperly and in a mere ministerial capacity ; but it is pro- 
perly and necessarily the gift and effect of the Holy Spirit speaking 
through the scriptures. The sum of the matter is this: faith is 
produced by scripture alone; therefore the true sense of scripture 
is to be discovered from the scripture itself alone. 

Our third argument stands thus: The supreme judge of contro- 
versies and legitimate interpreter of scripture should have these 
three properties: the first is, that we should certainly know that 
the sentence which he delivers is true, and that we can acquiesce in 
it; the second, that no appeal from that sentence shall be lawful; 
the third, that he be influenced by no partiality. Now the church 
or the pope possess none of these; whereas the scripture, and the 
Holy Spirit speaking in the scripture, have them all. Therefore 
the supreme decision is to be given to them, and not to the church 
or the pope. The major is self-evident. The minor, namely, that 
none of these properties exist in any visible church or in the pope, 
is clear also. For by the church the papists mean, first, the fathers 
and the unanimous sentences of the fathers; since unless they agree, 
they do not assign to them such great authority. But how can we 
be certain whether all the fathers agreed amongst themselves or 
with their brother bishops? In order to know this for certain we 





virt. | QUESTION THE FIFTH. 449 


should have to read all the fathers. Besides, there are no books 
extant of many fathers, so as to leave us totally ignorant what their 
opinion was. Secondly, by the church they mean councils. But 
how shall we know certainly that councils were legitimately assem- 
bled? And without this we can have no certain persuasion of the 
presence of the Holy Spirit. Besides, councils were not assembled 
or held to define all controversies and interpret all obscure parts of 
scriptures, but to condemn and refute two or three heretical doc- 
trines. So in the council of Nice Arius was condemned, who denied 
the divinity of the Son. In the council of Constantinople Macedonius 
was condemned, who impugned the divinity of the Holy Spirit. So 
in other councils other opinions of heretics were refuted out of the 
scriptures. But how small a part is this of those things which 
require a legitimate interpretation! In the third and last place, 
therefore, by the church they mean the pope. But there are 
grounds of hesitation also with respect to his sentence. For how 
can we be certain that he does not himself err? How shall it be 
made plain to us that he hath any such authority? They say, from 
scripture. I ask, from what scripture? — Forsooth from this: “I 
have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not.” Luke xxii. 32. 
Be it so. But who shall judge of the sense of this passage? How 
shall I know that it is spoken of the pope? My ears tell me that it 
is said of Peter; but of the pope I hear nothing. For Christ says, 
“T have prayed for thee, Peter," not “I have prayed for thee, 
pope. And Peter, indeed, did remain firm and constant in the 
faith to the very end of his life; but many popes have not had the 
like perseverance. How then shall I know that these words are 
meant of the pope? Who shall be the judge of this controversy ? 
The pope, they tell us. But it is unjust that he who is the subject 
of the controversy should be the judge of the controversy; and I 
am in greater doubt of the pope's authority than of the sense 
of this passage. There is need, therefore, of some other and more 
impartial judge. For who could say this was a legitimate interpre- 
tation ;—-since the pope says that infallibility is promised to him in 
this text, therefore he is infallible? Surely he needs some greater 
authority and testimony than his own word to prove that such a 
promise hath been made to him. Besides, the papists themselves 
acknowledge, that the pope may not only err, but even be a heretic, 
and so completely overturn this interpretation of the passage. 

Finally, councils, fathers, popes, are men; and scripture testifies 
that all men are deceitful. How then shall I acquiesce in their sen- 
29 


[ WHITAKER. | 


450 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY, [cH. 


tence? How can my conscience certainly determine, so as to leave 
no room for my faith to waver, that whatever they may pronounce 
is true ? This is surely to leave no difference between God and men. 
For I believe what God says to be true, because he says it, and 
seek no other reason; but when I hear scripture saying that * all 
men are liars," I dare not ascribe so much to man, lest I make him 
equal to God. If they say that it is true, not because they pro- 
nounce it, but because scripture says it, then they give the supreme 
authority to another, that is, to scripture. Thus, what we said was 
the first requisite in every judge, we have shewn impossible to be 
found in this judge whom our adversaries have set up. 

But now, as to the second part: if we cannot certainly know 
that their judgment is true, and that we may acquiesce in it, much 
less can we be so certain of their sentence as to make it unlawful 
for us to appeal against it. They appeal from fathers to councils, 
from councils to the pope; why then should it not be lawful for us 
to appeal from the pope to God, that is, to the Holy Spirit speak- 
ing in the scriptures? But, says the papist, God does not speak ; 
the Holy Spirit does not speak ; it is foolish, therefore, to appeal to 
him. I answer, that such an assertion is false and impious. For 
God speaks with us in the scriptures as it were face to face, as much 
as he formerly spake out of the cloud, Matth. xvii. 5; nor would he 
speak otherwise than he hath spoken in the scriptures, if he were 
now to utter a voice from heaven. Consequently we are commanded, 
John v. 39, to * search the scriptures :” and Matth. xxii. 29, Christ 
thus addresses the Sadducees: “ Ye do err, not knowing the scrip- 
tures.” So that errors spring from ignorance of the scriptures. And, 
2 Pet. i. 19, Peter praises those to whom he writes, saying: “ Ye 
do well that ye take heed to the word, Ao-yw, of prophecy." And 
on this account pious pastors do not say, you must believe because 
we say it, but because God hath said it; and if we ask of them how 
this may be known, they tell us, from the scriptures,—from this or 
that place of scripture. The Levites are commanded, Deut. xvii. 11, 
to judge according to the law; and, Joshua i. 7, Joshua is ordered 
to decline from the law neither to the right hand nor to the left. 
He is therefore permitted to determine nothing of himself, but is 
bound most closely to the scripture as his rule. Also, that scripture 
is not dumb or mute, but utters a clear voice which, if we be 
not deaf, we may easily hear, is manifestly shewn by the following 
texts: Rom. iii 19, Paul says, dca 0 vouos Eye Tots €v TH 
vouw dade, “ Whatever the law saith, it speaketh to those who 


VILL. | QUESTION THE FIFTH. 451 


are under the law.” So Moses ascribes to it a mouth, Deut. vii. 
11, where Pagninus hath translated it, ex ore legis. Heb. xii. 5, 
“Ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh, dsadéryerat, 
unto you as unto children: My son, despise not thou the chastening 
of the Lord,” &c. John vii. 42: ‘ Hath not the scripture said, 
eizev; &c.” And afterwards, verse 51, Nicodemus asks, Mj 
VOMOS NMOV Kpivet TOV avOpwrov ; * Doth our law judge the 
man," &e. If the law condemn, it certainly speaks. John xix. 37, 
érépa ypady déryer, “another scripture saith.” Paul asks, Rom. 
iv. 3, Ti yap n ypady Aéyer; “ What saith the scripture?” And 
discourse, Xóryos, is everywhere ascribed to scripture, so as plainly 
to convict those of folly and audacity who deny the power of 
speech to the scriptures. Since it is certain, therefore, that 
scripture speaks, what sort of voice shall we ascribe to it? Is 
it such as none can understand without the pope's help as inter- 
preter ? 

Our fourth argument is to this effect: If the scriptures should 
be interpreted and understood by the same Spirit whereby they 
were written, then it is necessary for all who would interpret or 
understand them to consult the Holy Spirit. But the former is 
true, and therefore also the latter. There can be no doubt of the 
consequence in the major; and as to the minor, it is evident from 
2 Tim. iii. 16, and 2 Pet. i. 21, that the Holy Spirit is the author 
of scripture. Now that the same Spirit is required for the under- 
standing of scripture, the papists themselves acknowledge, as Staple- 
ton, Andradius, and others, but in a somewhat different way from 
us. For they say that this Spirit, by whose teaching the scrip- 
tures are to be rightly understood and interpreted, resides only in 
the pope; whereas we say that he resides in every pious man who 
duly interprets scripture. This also Bernard asserts in his dis- 
course to the fathers of the mountain, where these words occur: 
* You will never be able to enter into Paul's meaning, unless you 
imbibe Paul's spirit!’ But, you will ask, how am I to imbibe this 
spirit? Can this spirit be infused by the pope? Bernard sub- 
joins, that it is to be gotten “by the use of a devout intention in 
reading, and by meditation;" therefore from the scripture itself. 
He adds something of the same kind respecting David: ** You can 
never understand David, until by actual experience you feel the 


[! Nunquam Pauli sensum ingredieris, donee usu bone intentionis in lec- 
tione ejus, et studio assidu: meditationis, spiritum ejus imbiberis.—Opp. T. r. 
p. 1171. Basil. 1566.] 


29—2 


452 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


affections which the Psalms express!" Each man therefore needs 
the Holy Spirit for the scriptures. This is what Jerome affirms in 
his commentary upon the first chapter of the Galatians: “ He that 
understands scripture otherwise than the sense of the Holy Spirit, 
by whom it was written, demands, may be called a heretic?." 
To this also relates that saying of Paul, 1 Cor. ii. 15, ** He that is 
spiritual judgeth all things,” avaxpivet wavta. Who is this spi- 
ritual man? The Jesuit wishes it to be understood only of a few 
perfect persons, who can even predict future events. But the falsity 
of this appears from the very words themselves: for mwevpaTtikos, 
or the spiritual man, is there opposed to te Wuyi, or the carnal 
man, and therefore denotes all the faithful who are regenerate and 
have received the Holy Ghost; as by the carnal, on the contrary, 
all those are meant who have not yet obtained the spirit of re- 
generation. 

So 1 John ii. 20, * Ye have an unction from the Holy One,” 
that is, ye have the Holy Spirit. What follows? What is it 
we have obtained by him? It follows, *and ye know all things," 
that is, all things necessary. Therefore he says, verse 27, “Ye 
have no need that any one teach you.” The Jesuit thus endeavours 
to elude this passage. He interprets the clause, “ that any man 
teach you,” as if now any one were to say, Ye who are catholics 
have no need that any Calvinist should teach you. So he would 
have John address the Christians of his time to this effect: ye who 
are Christians have no need that any false prophet or false apostle 
should teach you. But Augustine expounds this text very dif- 
ferently in his third Tractate upon the Epistle of John, where his 
words are as follows: ‘‘The anointing teacheth you all things.’ 
What then, brethren, are we about who teach you, if his anointing 
teacheth you of all things? We seem to labour in vain. And why 
do we spend our breath in this manner? Let us dismiss you to his 
anointing, that his own anointing may teach you. But as I have 
now proposed this question to myself, I propose it also to the 
apostle. Let him vouchsafe to listen to one of his little children 
asking him. I say to John himself, They to whom you spake had 
the anointing. You said, His own anointing teacheth you: where- 
fore then did you compose this Epistle? Why teach, instruct, and 


[1 Nunquam Davidem intelliges, donec ipsa experientia Psalmorum affec- 
tus indueris. "This piece, however, is not by Bernard.] 

(2 Qui scripturam aliter intelligit, quam sensus Spiritus Sancti efflagitat, 
a quo scripta est, heereticus appellari potest. ] 


Vil. | QUESTION THE FIFTH. 453 


edify them??” Hitherto he hath proposed the doubt; now he sub- 
joins the reply. There follow therefore in Augustine these ensuing 
words: “Now,” says he, “behold, brethren, this great mystery. The 
sound of our words strikes the ear; the teacher is within. Sup- 
pose not that any man learns of man. We may admonish you by 
the noise of our voice; but unless there be one within to teach you, 
it is an empty noise. Would ye, brethren, know it still further ? 
Have ye not all heard this discourse? Yet how many will go 
hence uninstructed! As far as in me lies, I have spoken to all: 
but they to whom that unction speaks not internally, they whom 
the Holy Ghost does not teach internally, they go forth unin- 
structed. External instructions are a sort of help and admonition: . 
but he who teaches hearts hath his chair in heaven* What is 
this chair in heaven? Wherefore, O most holy Augustine, dost 
thou place this chair in heaven? Knowest thou not that this chair 
is found on earth? Wert thou never at Rome, or sawest thou 
never the chair of Peter, wherein whosoever sits can teach thee 
all things? Why not rather in the earth? Doubtless Augustine 
knew nothing of that chair. But he goes on still farther, and refers 
to the same purpose that saying of Christ, which is related Matth. 
xxiii, * Call no man master on earth; for one is your master, even 
Christ." ‘He therefore," says Augustine, ‘speaks internally to 
you, when no man is there. For although one may be beside you, 
yet is there no one in your heart. But let it not be so that there 
should be no one in your heart; let his own unction be in your 
heart, lest your heart should be desert and thirsty and without 


[3 Quid ergo nos facimus, fratres, qui docemus vos, si unctio ejus docet 
vos de omnibus? Quasi nos sine causa laboramus. Et ut quid tantum clama- 
mus? Dimittamus vos unctioni illius, ut doceat vos unctio ipsius. Sed modo 
mihi facio questionem, et illi ipsi apostolo facio. Dignetur audire parvulum 
querentem ase: ipsi Joanni dico, Unctionem habebant quibus loquebaris? Tu 
dixisti, quia unctio ipsius docet vos de omnibus: ut quid talem epistolam 
fecisti? quid illos tu docebas? quid instruebas? quid sedificabas ?— Opp. 
Tompo199;2. Paris, 1565p. | 

[* Videte magnum sacramentum, fratres. Sonus verborum nostrorum 
aures perculit: magister intus est. Nolite putare quemquam hominem 
aliquid discere ab homine. Admonere possumus per strepitum vocis nostre : 
si non sit intus qui doceat, inanis fit strepitus noster. Adeo, fratres, vultis 
nosse? Nunquid non sermonem istum omnes audistis? Quam multi hine 
indocti exituri sunt! Quantum ad me pertinet, omnibus locutus sum ; sed 
quibus unctio illa intus non loquitur, quos Spiritus Sanctus intus non doceat, 
indocti redeunt. Magisteria forinsecus adjutoria quzdam sunt et admoni- 
tiones: cathedram in ccelo habet, qui corda docet.— Ibid. | 


454 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


any springs to irrigate it. The inward master therefore teaches; 
Christ teaches, his inspiration teaches." Thus Augustine upon that 
place; whence it appears that he differs widely from the Jesuit. 

To the same purpose also is that saying, Isaiah liv. 13, * They 
shall be all taught of God;" which passage is cited by Christ, 
John vi. 45: where we must note, that Isaiah does not say, they 
shall be all God's disciples, but, they shall be all taught of God, 
OcodidaxTot, OY Oakrol tov Ocov, which is something more. 
None, therefore, are truly taught but such as God teaches internally 
by his Holy Spirit. The Jesuit says, that we are therefore said 
to be taught of God, because Christ hath now taught us in his own 
person, and not through the prophets, as formerly: but absurdly. 
For it is manifest that the prophet speaks of all the faithful, and 
Christ also, John vi. applies it to all believers. But the faithful do 
not now hear Christ speaking in his proper person; are they, 
therefore, not Oeodidakror? Surely no discreet man will say so. 
However the Jesuit is obliged at length to confess that, in a more 
subtle and close (yea, rather in a correcter and truer) sense, it is 
meant of the Holy Spirit. Augustine, de Grat. Christ. cap. 12, 13, 
14!, compels him to make this admission. A somewhat similar 
passage occurs, Jeremiah xxxi. 33, 34, “I will put my law in their 
hearts, and they shall all know me from the least to the greatest." 
The Jesuit interprets that place to mean that all will believe in the 
unity of God, as now (says he) thé Jews and Turks and all nations 
do. But this is mere playing with the subject: for the text 
means to refer to saving faith, as 1s manifest from the context; for 
there follows immediately : ** They shall all know me from the least 
to the greatest, saith the Lord: for I will pardon their iniquity, 
and their sin I will remember no more." This is what he promises 
to inseribe upon their hearts. Is this to believe as the nations, 
Jews and Turks, believe? "Who would say it? Again, Luke x. 
21, 22, Christ gives thanks to the Father that he had “hid these 
things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes," 
&c. From which place it may be gathered, that faith is the work 
of God and of the Holy Spirit, not of any man; and that whoever 
really knows the religion of God, hath learned this knowledge from 
God. And let so much suffice for our fourth argument. 


[! Sie enim docet Deus eos qui secundum propositum vocati sunt, simul 
donans et quid agant scire, et quod sciunt agere..... Isto modo sunt omnes 
secundum propositum vocati, sicut scriptum est in prophetis, Docibiles Dei. — 
De Gratia Christi. c. 13. Opp. T. vir. p. 166, 2.] 


vu. | QUESTION THE FIFTH. 455 


Our fifth argument stands thus: When we demand of our 
opponents how scripture ought to be interpreted, they always answer 
at first and say, by the unanimous expositions of the fathers. But 
we immediately again demand of them, when we are to know that 
the fathers agree? For certainly in most places they are at 
variance; so that their authority will be but small. To make this 
better understood, I will propose one or two examples, from which 
the rest may be conjectured. Origen, Jerome, Athanasius, Ambrose, 
explain those words, Rom. vii, “I am carnal, sold under sin,” 
in such a manner as to make Paul speak not of himself, but in the 
person of an unregenerate man. But Augustine against Julian the 
Pelagian, Lib. 1. c. 2?, will have them to be understood of a re- 
generate man, and therefore of Paul himself. And in other places 
also he expounds that passage of the apostle in the same manner : 
which exposition Thomas confesses to be the preferable one. Let 
us consider another instance of the discrepancy of the fathers’ in- 
terpretation of scripture. Paul says, 1 Tim. iii. 2, “ that a bishop 
should be the husband of one wife.” Upon this place, as appears 
from Gratian, Dist. 26. C. Unius and C. Acutius?, the opinions of 
Augustine and Jerome were contrary to each other. Let us add a 
third example. Chrysostom and Jerome excuse the dissimulation 
of Peter related by Paul, Gal. ii. ; on the other hand Augustine and 
Ambrose think it sinful. Add now a fourth: ** We conclude," says 
Paul, (Rom. iii. 28,) ** that a man is justified by faith ;" which place 
Ambrose expounds of the heathen only, Chrysostom most truly of 
all-men universally, because he says, a man simply, 70 kowov ris 
QVoews Ovoua Oeis. So, to prove the same thing by yet other 
examples, in the same place by “the works of the law" Jerome 
understands ceremonies, circumcision, the sabbath, and such like; 
but Augustine and Ambrose the whole law, even the Decalogue. 
Hilary (Can. 50 in Matth.) thinks that Judas did not take the 
eucharist with the rest of the apostles, whom even some papists 
also follow: Augustine in many places, and almost all the other 
fathers, determine the contrary. Ambrose supposes that in Coloss. 
ii 21, in those words, * taste not, handle not," we are warned to 
have no hope in worldly things; but Augustine, Ep. 59, and Chry- 


[2 It should be c. 3.] 
[3 The opinion of Jerome, in Dist. 26, c. 1, is: Unius uxoris virum, id c 
monogamum post baptismum. "That of Augustine, ibid. c. 2, is, Acutius intel- 


ligunt qui nec eum, qui catechumenus vel paganus habuit alteram, ordinan- 
dum censuerunt. ] 


456 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


sostom, and Theophylact, teach us that rather they contain a censure 
of those who issued such prohibitions. Why should I enumerate 
more such expositions of fathers dissenting from each other, when 
they sometimes are at open variance with themselves? Erasmus, in 
his annotations on Luke xxii, upon these words, ** But now he that 
hath a purse,” &c. declares that Augustine is inconsistent with him- 
self upon the question whether Christian men may engage in war}, 

Who then is so stupid or so void of common sense as that, 
when he sees the fathers agreeing neither with each other nor 
with themselves in the interpretation of scripture, he should 
nevertheless rest in their interpretations? But even though we 
were to concede to them that the fathers agree upon all points 
(which they however cannot prove), yet, even from this, the con- 
clusion which they seek to draw will never follow ; and this we 
prove by the following argument : Whatever is of such a nature 
that it could not have been always the rule of scriptural interpre- 
tation, and had not always a judicial authority, ought not now to 
have the force of a rule or judicial decision: for the rule ought 
to be always one and the same, certain, firm and perpetual. But 
the unanimous exposition of the fathers was not always the rule of 
interpreting scripture; and, therefore, neither is it the rule now. 
That it was not the rule always, appears readily ; since there was 
a time when none of the writings of the fathers were extant. Most 
of them wrote four hundred years after Christ, some five or six 
hundred years after Christ. Now what, I beseech you, was the 
rule of scriptural interpretation before that time? There certainly 
was some, and yet this was not then in existence. 

Our sixth argument stands thus: Scripture hath greater au- 
thority in judging than the present church: therefore scripture 
ought to be the judge rather than the church; for this judgment 
ought to go along with the greatest authority. Now that the 
church hath not as great authority as the scripture, is manifest 
from Gal. i. 8, where Paul says: “ If we, or an angel from heaven, 
preach unto you any other gospel than that we have preached unto 
you, let him be accursed!” The papists (I suppose) will not ascribe 
more to the modern church than to that ancient one which flourished 
in the apostle’s time. Now it had no such authority, and could no 
otherwise interpret scripture than according to scripture. There- 


[! Jamillud videndum, an de bello satis sibi constet Augustinus; qui cum 
tot locis Christiane bellum detestetur, nunc adversus Manichzos ac Donatistas 
belli patronus esse videatur.—p. 212. Basil. 1535.] 


Vu. | QUESTION THE FIFTH. 457 


fore neither can any church do otherwise. Upon this passage we 
shall speak hereafter. | 

Our seventh argument is taken from Acts xvii. 11, where the 
Bereans are praised for searching the scriptures whether those 
things which Paul taught were so. From which place we argue 
thus: If the doctrine of the apostle was examined by scripture, 
then the doctrine of the church should also be examined by scrip- 
ture. The antecedent is true; therefore also the consequent. The 
Jesuit here hath but one reply. He says that the person of the 
apostle was not known to the Bereans, and that they did not un- 
derstand whether Paul was an apostle or not; and therefore that 
they did well in judging his doctrine by the scriptures: but we do 
know (says he) that the church cannot err, and therefore we ought 
not to examine its teaching. I answer: It makes little matter 
whether the Bereans knew Paul to be an apostle or not. The 
question is not about persons, but about the kind of teaching. The 
Bereans are praised for not rashly and hastily receiving whatever 
Paul taught them, but diligently examining his doctrine by scrip- 
ture  Whence we draw two inferences: First, that all doctrine is 
to be judged by the scriptures. For, if the Bereans compared the 
preaching of an apostle with the rule of scripture, shall we embrace 
without any examination whatever the pope may please to maintain ? 
Secondly, That the apostles preached nothing which could not be 
established by the scriptures of the prophets, and did perfectly 
agree with them. But we (says he) know that the church cannot 
err. But we (say I) know that the pope errs shamefully, and they | 
who think otherwise err also to the eternal ruin of their own souls. 
Whether the church may err or not, shall be treated of in its 
proper place. Verily, the church, that is, the pope, would be a 
kind of God if he could not err. 

Our eighth argument is taken from 1 Thess. v. 21, where 
Paul says, * Prove all things," wavra óokwá(ere: and from 
1 John iv. 1, where John says, “ Believe not every spirit, but 
try the spirits whether they be of God ;" doxiaere Ta wvevuara. 
Hence I conclude, that the teaching of the church should be ex- 
amined. The Jesuit says that this precept does not refer to all, 
but only to the learned and well instructed; which he illustrates by 
the following comparison. If a book, says he, were sent to an 
university to be examined, all the members of the university would 
not examine it, but only the doctors of some one faculty. I answer, 
that the book should be examined and perused by all who ought 


458 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cu. 


to approve it. But as to the present subject, I allow that all 
cannot try every doctrine; for the ungodly cannot do so. But all 
pious and faithful men both ought and can discharge this duty, as 
is plain from 1 Thess. v. For if all good Christians are commanded 
* to pray always, to rejoice evermore, to give thanks, not to quench 
the Spirit, to hold fast that which is good," which are the common 
duties of piety; then also all good Christians ought to “try all 
things." Now those former injunctions concern all the faithful. 
Therefore also this latter. For John in that place addresses aya- 
myrovs and maia, his beloved and little children, that is, all 
devout and faithful Christians. Therefore all pious people are com- 
manded by the apostle to take heed to themselves, and diligently 
to examine every doctrine, lest, peradventure, they receive false for 
true. Secondly, Bellarmine says that it is only doubtful doctrine 
that is here treated of. I reply, that we also mean no other. 
For that which is either plainly false, or undoubtedly true, is not 
commonly brought in question or examined by those who are 
already taught what they ought to think. But how are we to 
ascertain that any doctrine is not doubtful? Without examination 
we can never be able to determine that any dogma is absolutely 
certain and beyond all doubt. It is this trial (So«tuacia) which 
enables us to distinguish true doctrines from false, to hold fast the 
true and to reject the false. Is any one so mad as to say that the 
doctrines of Christianity are no otherwise certain and indubitably 
true, than as the pope of Rome hath affirmed them in a response 
from his chair? But first we must, at least, examine the privilege by 
which he pretends that he is exempted from error in passing judg- 
ment. Will he remove this too from our cognisance? Surely, un- 
less this be clear, we shall be always in uncertainty. What then? 
Must he be interpreter of his own privilege also? The pope hath 
the privilege of infallibility. Whence doth this appear? From 
the opinion and exposition of the pope himself. Those who can 
assent to so slight an inducement truly deserve never to think 
correctly of anything. Besides, what else is this, but to ascribe our 
faith, not to God, but to the pope? Similar to these passages is 
that, Matth. vii 15, where Christ orders all to beware of false 
prophets. But how shall we know them? He tells us, * by their 
fruits.” But what are these fruits? Are they bad morals? By 
no means; for many false prophets seem to live a life of greater 
sanctity than some good or true teachers. They are to be known, 
therefore, not merely by their morals, but still more by their false 


virt. | QUESTION THE FIFTH. 459 


interpretations and expositions. And so Vincentius Lirinensis, whom 
the papists highly esteem, expounds this place, capp. 36 and 37. 

Our ninth argument is this: If the fathers, the councils, and 
the pope have the supreme authority of interpreting the scriptures, 
then our faith is ultimately resolved into their judgment. But the 
consequent is false, and therefore also the antecedent. The con- 
sequent in the major is manifest. For whatever hath the supreme 
authority of assigning the sense of scripture, upon that our faith, 
in the last resolution, must bottom itself and rest. For our faith re- 
poses upon that which gives the most certain sense of scripture, and 
judges of all doctrine. The papists themselves concede the minor: 
for they deny, as was already remarked in the third question, that 
our faith is ultimately resolved into the sentence of the church. 

Our tenth argument stands thus: He who made the law alone 
hath supreme authority to expound the law. But God alone made 
the scriptures. Therefore God alone hath supreme authority to in- 
terpret the scriptures. The major is plain by the very light of 
nature. The minor is also manifest. So the apostles confirmed all 
their doctrine by the authority of the divine law, that is, by the old 
Testament. So Nehemiah, as we read, Nehem. vii. 9, read the law 
of God plainly to the people, and in expounding the sense “ gave 
the meaning by the scripture itself.” So Tremellius translates that 
passage, and correctly. The scripture itself, therefore, is its own 
faithful and clear interpreter, and the Spirit of God in the scrip- 
tures illustrates and explains himself. 

I form our eleventh argument thus: If the supreme judgment 
of scripture belong to the church, then it will follow (though our 
adversaries intimate that they do not like the consequence), that the 
authority of the church is greater than that of scripture; which is 
made plain by the following considerations. The sense of scripture 
is the scripture itself. They, therefore, who embrace and retain 
any sense for no other reason but because the church hath so deter- 
mined and taught, and not on account of the prophetic or apostolic 
scriptures, these not only ascribe a more august authority to the 
church than to the scripture, but also rest their salvation upon the 
voice and sentence of the church. For to faith are incident these 
two things, what we believe, and why. The what contains all the 
integral parts of the thing believed. Now what is the why? Is it 
the authority of the pope or the church? Do we then upon no 
other account believe that the world was made, that Adam sinned, 
that the Redeemer Christ was promised, came into the world in 


460 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


his proper time, undertook and accomplished the business of our 
salvation, and that he will return again at the end of the world, 
but because thus speaks the church, and thus the pope of Rome? 
O noble basis of the christian faith! O glorious faith of papists ! 

I propound our twelfth argument thus: If the pope be the 
supreme judge of controversies and interpreter of scripture, then 
every definition of the pope's is as authentic as the scripture. The 
force of the inference is manifest, but the consequent is plainly false. 
For then all the definitions of the popes would have equal authority 
with the scriptures, and should be ranked in the sacred canon of 
scripture, and should be searched with still greater diligence than 
the scriptures: all which conclusions are monstrously shocking and 
absurd. 

Our thirteenth argument is to this effect: No man is a suf- 
ficient judge of controversies or interpreter of scripture: there- 
fore, not the pope. For no man ought to decide controversies by 
his own authority, but by that of another, namely, of God and the 
scriptures. So formerly the Nicene fathers condemned Arius by 
divine testimonies; so the holy bishops condemned Macedonius, 
Nestorius, Eutyches, by the authority of scripture, and not by their 
own. Besides, if a man could define controversies by his own 
authority, he would have a sort of lordship over our souls and 
faith, which the apostle plainly denies, 2 Cor. i. 24. ov kuptevomev 
Uuav THs vloTews. Furthermore, if we were placed in the power 
of a man, to remove all controversies and determine what should 
be believed, then the sentence of a man would be the matter of 
our faith. 

Our fourteenth argument is as follows: If the scriptures do not 
interpret themselves or judge controversies, this is because they 
are either obscure or imperfect. But neither impediment exists: 
for we have shewn before that they are plain in all necessary 
things; and that they are perfect in all respects, we shall demon- 
strate hereafter. 

Our fifteenth argument is this: Every one ought to rest upon 
his own faith and his own judgment, and not depend upon 
another’s will and pleasure. Therefore the Roman pontiff is not 
the sole judge of controversies in the church. For each indi- 
vidual should be his own judge, and stand by his own judgment, 
not indeed mere private judgment, but such as is inspired by God: 
and no one can bestow the Holy Spirit save God who infuses it 
in whom he will. Nor can any one man render another certain in 


vill. | QUESTION THE FIFTH. 461 


matters of religion, with whatever authority he may be invested. 
Christ says, John vi 44, 45, ** No man can come unto me unless 
my Father draw him: wherefore whosoever hath heard and learned 
of the Father cometh unto me." John the Baptist says also, John 
ii. 33, * He that receiveth his testimony hath set to his seal that 
God is true.” There is, therefore, need of Christ's testimony before 
we can truly and aright believe anything. 

There remains now our last argument, which is drawn from 
human testimony, and the authority of the ancient fathers. 
Irenzeus, in his 4th book against Heresies, cap. 63, says that 
“the legitimate and safe exposition of the scriptures is by the 
scriptures themselves!" Hilary, in his 1st book upon the Trinity, 
writes thus upon this subject: “The best reader is he who rather 
waits for the meaning from the words than imposes one, who 
takes instead of giving it, nor forces that to seem to be contained 
in the expression which, before reading it, he had presumed to 
be the sense. When, therefore, the discourse shall be of the things 
of God, let us allow to God the knowledge of himself, and wait upon 
his words with a pious veneration. He is a sufficient witness to 
himself, who is not known but by himself?" So Hilary. 

Augustine hath many testimonies in our favour. In his book of 
Marriage and Concupiscence, Lib. 11. cap. 33, he writes thus: ** This 
controversy requires a judge." But who shall be the judge? He 
replies, “Let Christ be the judge.” And a little after: ** With 
him let the apostle judge also; for Christ himself speaks in the 
apostle®.” Why did he not say, Let the Roman pontiff, or, at least, 


(1 Agnitio vera est apostolorum doctrina, et antiquus ecclesiz status in 
universo mundo, et character corporis Christi, secundum successiones epis- 
coporum, quibus illi eam, qu:& in unoquoque loco est, ecclesiam tradiderunt, 
quie pervenit usque ad nos, custodita sine fictione scripturarum tractatione 
plenissima, neque additamentum neque ablationem recipiens, et lectio sine 
falsatione, et secundum scripturas expositio legitima et diligens, et sine 
periculo et sine blasphemia.—p. 400. a. ed. Fevard.] 

(2 Optimus lector est, qui dictorum intelligentiam exspectet ex verbis 
potius quam imponat, et retulerit magis quam attulerit, neque cogat id videri 
dietis contineri, quod ante lectionem preesumpserit intelligendum. Cum 
itaque de rebus Dei erit sermo, concedamus cognitionem sui Deo, dictisque 
ejus pia veneratione famulemur.  Idoneus enim sibi testis est, qui nisi per 
se cognitus non est.—pp. 776, 777. Opp. Paris. 1693.] 

[? Ista controversia judicem querit. Judicet ergo Christus, et cui rei 
mors ejus profecerit, ipse dicat: hie est, inquit, sanguis meus, qui pro multis 
effundatur in remissionem peccatorum. Judicet cum illo et apostolus, quia 
et in apostolo ipse loquitur Christus.—Opp. T. vir. p. 185.] 


462 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ou. 


Christ speaking in the Roman pontif, be judge?, Doubtless, 
because he acknowledged no such judge. The same father, in his 
book of Grace and Free-will, cap. 18, writes in almost the same - 
terms: “Let the apostle John sit as judge between us!" But 
where? Surely nowhere else but in the scriptures: for he im- 
mediately produces a place from 1 John iv., * Beloved, let us love 
one another." Also, in his books of Christian Doctrine, he writes 
more than once, that scripture is to be expounded by scripture. In 
the 11th book of his City of God, c. 33, there occurs the following 
testimony. * We," says he, “ have supposed that there are two so- 
cieties of angels, different and opposed the one to the other, —the one 
both by nature good and upright in will, the other though good by 
nature, yet perverted in will—which are plainly spoken of in other 
more clear testimonies of scripture, to be here, in this book, called 
Genesis, designated by the words light and darkness, although 
perhaps he who wrote it had another meaning in this passage. This 
obseure passage hath not been considered without profit; for even 
though we have failed to discover the meaning of the author of this 
book, we have not swerved from the rule of faith, which is sufficiently 
known to the faithful by means of other parts of sacred scripture 
which have a like authority?" The same author also, in his book 
de Genesi ad Literam, Lib. 1. c. 21, tells us how the sense of scrip- 
ture may best be found : * When we read the divine books, where 
the number of true meanings which may be drawn from a few words, 
and are fortified by the integrity of the catholic faith, 1s so great, 
let us especially choose that which it shall appear certain that he 
whom we read intended; but if this be hidden from us, yet that 
which the context does not forbid, and which is in harmony with a 
sound faith: but if the context too cannot be considered and 
sifted, at least only that which a sound faith prescribes. For it is 
one thing not to distinguish what the writer principally intended, 


[! Sedeat ergo inter nos judex apostolus Joannes, et dicat nobis: Caris- 
simi, diligamus invicem.—Opp. T. vi. p. 284. 2.] 

[? Nos has duas societates angelicas, inter se dispares atque contrarias, 
unam et natura bonam et voluntate rectam, aliam vero natura bonam, sed 
voluntate perversam, aliis manifestioribus divinarum scripturarum testimo- 
niis declaratas, quod in hoc libro, cui nomen Genesis, lucis tenebrarumque 
vocabulis significatas existimavimus, etiamsi aliud sensit hoc loco forte qui 
Scripsit. Non est inutiliter obscuritas hujus pertractata sententize, quia etsi 
voluntatem auctoris libri hujus indagare nequivimus, a regula tamen fidei, 
quee per alias ejus auctoritatis sacras literas satis fidelibus nota est, non 
aberravimus.] 


viii. | QUESTION THE FIFTH. 463 


and another to swerve from the rule of piety. If both faults be 
avoided, the fruit to the reader is perfect. But if both cannot be 
avoided, even though the intention of the writer be uncertain, yet it 
is not without use to have gained a meaning congruous with a sound 
belief *.”’ The same father, Epistle 19, indicates plainly enough 
what we should determine of the expositions of the fathers, when he 
says: * Other authors, however excellent their sanctity and learn- 
ing, I read so as not to credit their assertions merely because they 
thought thus; but because they have been able to persuade me that 
they were not repugnant to truth, either by means of the canonical 
writers or some probable process of reasoning*." In these words 
Augustine teaches us three things: First, that, in matters of faith, 
we ought to depend upon the authority and judgment of no men, 
however holy or learned, much less upon that of a single impure 
and illiterate pontiff. Secondly, that no human expositions are to 
be received but as they are confirmed either by the scriptures or 
by probable reasoning.  Thirdly, that we require to have a full 
persuasion, such as cannot be thought to be in those who, knowing 
nothing accurately themselves, hang the whole of their faith and 
salvation on the opinions of other men. 

Basil, Epist. 805, ascribes the authority of deciding and defining 
controversies, in these words: “ We do not think it just that that 
eustom of speaking, which hath obtained amongst them, should be 
esteemed the law and canon of correct doctrine. For if custom is 
sufficient to be the test of right doctrine, it is doubtless lawful also 
for us to imitate them herein. Let us stand therefore by the judg- 
ment of the scripture inspired by God; and let, by all means, truth 


[3 Cum divinos libros legimus, in tanta multitudine verorum intellectuum 
qui de paucis verbis eruuntur, et sanitate catholice fidei muniuntur, id 
potissimum deligamus, quod certum apparuerit eum sensisse quem legimus: 
si autem hoc latet, id certe quod circumstantia scripturee non impedit, et 
cum sana fide concordat: si autem et scripture circumstantia pertractari 
ac discuti non potest, saltem id solum quod fides sana preescribit. Aliud est 
enim, quid potissimum scriptor senserit non dignoscere, aliud autem a regula 
pietatis errare. Si utrumque vitetur, perfecte se habet fructus legentis. Si 
vero utrumque vitari non potest, etiamsi voluntas scriptoris incerta sit, sanse 
fidei congruam non inutile est tenuisse sententiam.—Opp. T. rr. p. 116, 2.] 

[4 Alios autem ita lego, ut quantalibet sanctitate doctrinaque przepolleant, 
non ideo verum putem, quia ipsi ita senserunt; sed quia mihi vel per illos 
auctores canonicos, vel probabili ratione, quod a vero non abhorreat, per- 
suadere potuerunt.—Id. Ad Hieronym. T. zr. p. 15, 2.] 

[5 Quest. Iv. c. 17.] 


464 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


of opinion be ascribed to those with whom are found doctrines con- 
sonant with the divine oracles." It is admirably well expressed in 
the Greek: » QcorvevaTos rutv cvartyoaTw ypapy. Kai wap’ ois 
dv evpeO5 Ta doyuata auvmdd Tots Üetois oryou, evi TovTots 
née THS adynOctas 5 Yos. From these words two things are 
to be gathered: first, that in every question the judgment of the 
scriptures is supreme; secondly, that those are to be judged to 
have the truth whose doctrines agree with the divine oracles. 
Optatus Milevitanus, in his 5th book against Parmenianus, dis- 
puting upon this question, whether a baptized person might be 
rebaptized, illustrates our cause admirably in these words: ‘“ Some 
judges must be sought of this controversy. If Christians, they can- 
not be assigned by consent of both sides, because truth is obstructed 
by party zeal. A judge must be sought without. If a pagan, he 
cannot know the Christian mysteries. If a Jew, he is an enemy of 
Christian baptism. Therefore no tribunal can be found on earth 
to take cognisance of this matter. A judge must be sought from 
heaven. But why do we knock at heaven's gates, when we have 
his Testament here in the gospel? The Testament, I say ; for in 
this place earthly things may rightly be compared with heavenly !." 
Thus Optatus; from which passage we derive three observations: 
first, that in every religious controversy some impartial and com- 
petent judge must be sought for, who is not engaged in the interest 
of either party. At that time there was a dispute between the 
catholics and Donatists. No Christian judge, says Optatus, could 
be found competent to decide the controversy ; because all Christians 
favour one side or the other, so as to approach the decision with 
some degree of prejudice. Whence I draw this conclusion: if the 
Roman pontiff was not then a competent judge of those contro- 
versies which then subsisted between the catholies and the Dona- 
tists, because he might seem attached to one side; how much less 
can the final decision be allowed him in these which are now 
agitated, wherein he is under the influence of still stronger party 
feeling, inasmuch as it is his own interest that lies at stake! 


[! Querendi sunt aliqui hujus controversie judices: si Christiani, de 
utraque parte dari non possunt, quia studiis veritas impeditur. Deforis 
quzerendus est judex. Si paganus, non potest nosse christiana secreta. Si 
Judzus, inimicus est christiani baptismatis. Ergo in terris de hac re nullum 
poterit reperiri judicium. De colo querendus est judex. Sed ad quid pul- 
samus ad coelum, cum habemus hic in evangelio testamentum ?—Optat. c. 
Parmen. Don. Lib. v. c. 8.] 


vill. | | QUESTION THE FIFTH. 465 


Secondly, that no judge of religion is to be sought for, as the 
papists would have it, upon the earth, but from heaven. If Optatus 
had thought that any judge had been constituted on earth by 
Christ, he would surely never have said that a judge was to be 
sought in heaven, but would have appealed to this legitimate judge 
of the church. Thirdly, that it is not necessary to elicit any divine 
voice or response from heaven itself; but that the scriptures should 
be consulted, and a certain decision of the controversy sought in the 
gospel and derived from the gospel: for he says that we then 
have a celestial judge, when the scripture is the judge. 

Ambrose, in the 5th book of his Epistles, in a certain oration 
against Auxentius the Arian, which is contained in the 32nd and 
33rd Epistles?, desires the people to be the judge of that dispute 
which he had with Auxentius, because he knew them to be skilled 
in the scripture. Auxentius was unwilling that the people should 
hear the dispute, and on that account Ambrose censures him. Theo- 
phylact says upon John x., “Since it is, when made intelligible and 
opened by the Holy Spirit, that the scriptures shew us Christ, pro- 
bably the porter is the Holy Spirit :” where he sufficiently indicates, 
that the scriptures are only unfolded by the Holy Ghost, and that 
therefore the Holy Ghost is the porter of the scriptures. There- 
fore, those who are without this Spirit can never understand the 
scriptures. | 

Lyra, having raised the question whether the truth of faith can 
be sufficiently proved by the sacred scripture, answers thus, as we 
read in Pelbart’s Golden Rosary, Tom. m1. c. de Fide, Art. 9. “The 
efficacy of proof through scripture may be otherwise taken thus, that, 
although scripture may in some sense be otherwise explained so as at 
least to escape without a manifest contradiction, yet, speaking simply, 
it cannot so reasonably be explained in any other manner but that 
the exposition of the catholic faith shall always appear more reason- 
able?." So that, however heretics may turn and twist the scriptures, 
yet the scriptures shall assert of themselves their own truth from 


[? Hsec ego, fratres, coram ipso apud vos plenius disputarem: sed certus 
non ignaros vos esse fidei, vestrum refugit examen.— Sermo c. Auxent. n. 26. 
p. 353. T. vim. Paris. 1839.) 

[? Alio modo potest accipi probationis efficacia per scripturam sic, quod 
licet scriptura possit aliter exponi aliquo modo, saltem ad evadendum absque 
contradictione manifesta, tamen simpliciter loquendo, non potest alio modo 
rationabiliter exponi, quin semper appareat expositio fidei catholica ratio- 
nabilior. | 


30 


[ WHITAKER. | 


466 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


the false expositions of heretics in such a manner as to make the 
catholic truth ever seem more probable to any man not wholly 
estranged from it.  Cajetan, in the preface to his commentaries 
upon the books of Moses, says, that the exposition of scripture is not 
tied by God to the sense of the fathers; and he therefore ad- 
monishes his readers not to take it ill, or blame him, if he sometimes 
dissent from the torrent of the fathers, that is, from their unanimous 
opinion. Canus, in his Common places, Lib. vi. e. 3, censures the 
cardinal severely, and charges him with arrogance; but it is not 
necessary that I should appear in his defence, whom Andradius 
vindicates in the second book of his Defensio Tridentina, subjoining 
also some reasons to shew that he could say truly what he actually 
hath said. For he alleges, firstly, that the fathers were too much 
given to allegorical expositions; and, consequently, that since the 
sense of scripture is but one, Cajetan is not to be blamed for under- 
valuing the allegories of the fathers. Secondly, he says, that the 
ancient fathers, however united in their sentiments upon the mys- 
teries of religion, did yet assign different and dissimilar meanings 
when they approached the interpretation of scripture. Thirdly 
and lastly, he affirms that the Holy Spirit is ‘the sole and faith- 
ful interpreter of scripture.” 

Let it suffice to have said thus much upon the former part of 
this fifth question. Now follows the second part. 





CHAPTER IX. 


THE STATE OF THE QUESTION, CONCERNING THE MEANS OF 
FINDING THE TRUE SENSE OF SCRIPTURE. 


We have spoken of the supreme authority for interpreting 
scripture, which we have proved to belong to the Holy Spirit 
speaking in the scriptures, not to fathers, or councils, or pope. We 
have now to treat concerning the means of finding the sense of scrip- 
ture. For since scripture hath no audible voice, we must use cer- 
tain means to investigate what is the sense and what the mind of 
the scriptures. If Christ were now himself with us, if the apostles 
and prophets were living amongst us, we might repair to them, and 
entreat them to disclose to us the meaning of what they had written. 
But since they have departed and left us only their books, we must 


IX. | | QUESTION THE FIFTH. 467 


consider what means we should use to discover the true sense of 
seripture and the words of God. The church, indeed, hath always 
used some means in the interpretation of scripture. Here I will 
enumerate first those means which are proposed by our divines ; 
which if we make a lawful and holy application of, we shall not miss 
of the true meaning, and which the church herself is bound to use, 
unless she prefer to go wrong in the interpretation of scripture. 

In the first place, prayer is necessary for reading the scriptures 
so as to understand them ; and on that account David so often begs 
of God to illuminate his mind and to open his eyes; and, in Matth. 
vii. Christ says, “Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and ye shall 
find: knock, and it shall be opened unto you." And James, chap. i. 
v. 5, says: “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who 
giveth to all men hberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be 
given him.” Whence a certain father said, that he profited more 
in the knowledge of scripture by prayer, than by reading and 
study. And Origen!, in his 12th Homily on Exodus, says that we 
must not only apply study in order to learn the sacred word, but 
also supplicate God and entreat him night and day, that the Lamb 
of the tribe of Juda may come, and, taking himself the sealed book, 
vouchsafe to open it. Augustine too, in his book De Scala Para- 
disi, c. 2, writes thus admirably upon this subject: ** Reading 
inquires, meditation finds, prayer asks, contemplation tastes: whence 
the Lord himself says, ‘Seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it 
shall be opened unto you. Seek by reading, and ye shall find in 
meditation: knock by prayer, and it shall be opened to you in 
contemplation. Reading does, as it were, set the solid food at the 
lips; meditation breaks and chews it; prayer gains a relish; and 
contemplation is the very sweetness itself which gives us pleasure 
and refreshment. Reading is in the rind, meditation in the marrow, 
prayer in the demand of desire, contemplation in the delight of the 
sweetness now acquired?." Thus far Augustine. And Jerome says 


[1 Unde ostenditur non solum studium nobis adhibendum esse ad dis- 
cendas literas sacras, verum et supplicandum Domino, et diebus ac noctibus 
obsecrandum ut veniat agnus de tribu Jude etipse accipiens librum signatum 
dignetur aperire. Origen. Opp. p. 61. Paris. 1604.] 

[? Lectio inquirit, meditatio invenit, oratio postulat, contemplatio de- 
gustat; unde ipse Dominus dicit: Queerite, et invenietis; pulsate, et aperietur 
vobis. Queerite legendo, et invenietis meditando : pulsate orando, et aperietur 
vobis contemplando. Lectio quasi solidum cibum ori apponit, meditatio 
masticat et frangit, oratio saporem acquirit, contemplatio est ipsa dulcedo 


90—2 


468 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


to Leta: “ Let reading follow prayer, and prayer reading!.” This 
should be always the first means, and the foundation of the rest. 
Secondly, we ought to understand the words which the Holy 
Spirit hath used in the scriptures; and therefore we ought to know 
the original languages. We should consult the Hebrew text in the 
old Testament, the Greek in the new: we should approach the 
very fountain-heads of the scriptures, and not stay beside the 
derived streams of versions. Indeed, the ignorance of these lan- 
guages, the Hebrew and the Greek, hath been the source of many 
errors; at least, those who are not acquainted with them are desti- 
tute of the best helps and assistances, and are involved in frequent 
and unavoidable mistakes. Augustine, in his books of Christian 
Doctrine, exhorts all students of theology to the study of these 
languages. And upon this account in the council of Vienna? (how- 
ever otherwise superstitious, as held under pope Clement V.) a 
decree was made that there should be professors of these tongues in 
all universities. For, unless we understand the words, how shall we 
find the sense? And indeed many errors are refuted by the mere 
understanding of the words themselves. Thus we often refute our 
adversaries. For example, Luke ii. 14, the Rhemists make out 
the freedom of the will from the Vulgate Latin version, which is 
this: Pax in terra hominibus bone voluntatis. But they are 
easily refuted by the original: for in the Greek it is evdoxia, 
which never denotes the free will of man, as the Rhemists absurdly 
explain it, but the gratuitous goodness of God toward men: and this, 
indeed, some of the papists themselves concede. Eph. ii. 10 is thus 
read in the Vulgate Latin version: Creati in Christo Jesu in operi- 
bus bonis; whence some papists gather, that we are justified by 
good works. But they are easily refuted out of the original Greek ; 
for evi there denotes ad, not zn. In Coloss. iv. 16, there is men- 
tion made, in the old version, of a certain epistle of the Laodiceans ; 
from which many have thought that there was some epistle of Paul 


que jucundat et reficit. Lectio in cortice, meditatio in adipe, oratio in 
desiderii postulatione, contemplatio in adept dulcedinis delectatione. The 
Benedictines ascribe this work to Guigo or Guido Carthusianus (flor. circ. 
1120), and place it in the appendix to T. vr. of their edition of Augustine, 
Par. 1679. It is often printed amongst the works of St Bernard. ] 

[1 Orationi lectio, lectioni succedat oratio.—Ad Leet. Ep. 57. (al. 7.) T. rv. 
p. 596.] 

[? The council of Vienna, counted as the 15th general, was held in the 
year 1311. See its decrees in Labbe's collection of the Councils, T. x1 
part 11.] 


IX. | QUESTION THE FIFTH. 469 


written to the Laodiceans. But this mistake is corrected by the 
original: for in the Greek text it is read é« Aaoduelas. In 1 Cor. 
xiv. 16, the words stand thus in the old version: Sz benedixeris 
Spiritu, qui supplet locum idiote, quomodo dicet Amen? Hence 
the papists gather that there ought to be some person to make 
responses to the priest in behalf of the whole congregation, such 
as those clerks, whom they hire for a groat to stand beside the 
priest at mass. But this admits an easy refutation from the Greek 
text: for o avawAnpa@v Tov TOTOV TOU iocwTov does not mean him 
who supplies the place of the unlearned (since the verb avazAspouv 
never occurs in that sense?), but rather one that fills the place of 
the unlearned, that is, one who sits amongst the unlearned, and is 
really unlearned and a layman. In 1 Sam. xxi. 13, it is said that 
David, in the house of Achish king of Gath, was mad, or played the 
madman in their hands, that is, pretended madness. The old trans- 
lation hath, collabebatur inter manus eorum. Of these words 
Augustine, in his Commentary on Psalm Ixxxii.4, produces a strange 
exposition suggested by the faulty translation of some obscure 
interpreter, who had rendered them thus: ferebatur in manibus 
suis. Hence Augustine refers these words to Christ, and says that 
they are true if accommodated to the holy supper, because Christ 
did, after a certain manner (quodammodo), carry himself in his own 
hands, when he said to his disciples, ** This is my body."  How- 
ever, he puts in the word quodammodo, so that the papists should 
not suppose that he favoured their opinion. Now Augustine fell 
into this mistake from not understanding the Hebrew term.  Bel- 
larmine, De Ecclesia, Lib. rr. c. 12, proves the visibility of the 
church by the testimony of Psalm xix., In sole posuit tabernacu- 
lum suum, according to the version of the old translator, who hath 
followed the Septuagint. Yet Jerome, twelve hundred years ago, 
had rendered it from the Hebrew thus: Soli posuit tabernaculum 
in eis (the heavens); so as to shew that this text testifies not that 
the tabernacle of the church was pitched in the sun, but that of the 
sun in the heavens. Such faults and blemishes in versions the 
heretics, and above all the papists, abuse to the confirmation of their 
errors; which, however, are most easily removed by an inspection 


[? But see Schwartz. Comment. Ling. Gree. p. 98.] 

[* Quomodo ferebatur in manibus suis? Quia cum commendaret ipsum 
corpus suum et sanguinem suum, accepit in manus suas quod norunt fideles, 
et ipse se portabat quodammodo.—Augustin. Opp. T. vir. col. 234. Basil. 
1569.] 


470 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


of the originals and a knowledge of the languages. It is therefore 
principally necessary that, as Augustine somewhere says, we should 
have a just and correct knowledge of the signs of things, that is, of 
words. 

Thirdly, in dealing with the words we should consider which 
are proper, and which figurative and modified. For, when words 
are taken figuratively, they should not be expounded strictly. “It 
is,” says Augustine, in his books of Christian Doctrine, “a wretched 
bondage of the soul, when signs are taken for things!;" that is, 
when what is spoken figuratively is expounded as if spoken strictly. 
Hence hath arisen that difficult and long-continued dispute between 
us and the papists about the words of consecration, which we 
would have understood figuratively, and they strictly. But how 
shall we know whether words be taken figuratively or strictly ? 
This inquiry suggests the addition of a fourth mean. 

Fourthly, therefore, we ought to consider the scope, end, 
matter, circumstances (that is, as Augustine says, the persons, place 
and time), the antecedents and consequents of each passage; and by 
this means it will be no hard matter both to refute many errors, 
and to arrive at a clear understanding of those things which 
seemed at first obscure. The Rhemists conclude from 1 Pet iv. 8, 
(where Peter writes, that charity covers the multitude of sins,) 
that charity hath the power of taking away and extinguishing sins, 
and thereby of justifying us before God; and therefore, that faith 
alone does not justify. Now, if we consider the occasion, scope, 
preceding and following context, and the other circumstances of 
this passage, we shall find that the apostle is not speaking of our 
charity as justifying us before God or procuring remission of 
our sins, but of that fraternal love which represses many occasions 
of offence, and so quenches feuds and enmities amongst brethren. 
But how shall we understand that this is the sense of the passage ? 
Why, from the context itself. The apostle says, in the words im- 
mediately preceding, ‘“‘ having sincere love one towards another.” 
He is speaking, consequently, of the love wherewith we should 
embrace and respect our brethren. And, if we compare this place 
with another, namely, with Prov. x. 12, whence Peter took these 
words, this will appear still more plainly. There we read thus: 
* Hatred stirreth up strifes and contentions, but love covereth the 
multitude of sins:” where, by reason of the antithesis between the 


[! Ea demum est miserabilis anime servitus, signa pro rebus accipere. 
Lib. rm. c. 5, ad fin.] 


Ix. | QUESTION THE FIFTH. 471 


first and second clauses of the sentence, the meaning of the latter 
may easily be gathered from that of the former. Christ says, 
Matt. xix. 17: “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the command- 
ments.” From this all the papists collect that we are justified by 
the merit of our works, but, in the meanwhile, they reflect not 
what sort of person it was to whom Christ said this; a person, 
namely, who had come to Christ resting upon the opinion of his 
own righteousness, and, elevated with pride, had asked, what he 
ought to do to obtain eternal life. Such persons, who trust in 
their own merits, are deservedly referred to the law ; that so they 
may come to understand how far they are from perfect righteous- 
ness. Indeed, the ancients frequently fell into mistakes from not 
attending to the series and connection of the text. In Job xxi. 
18, we read, * They pass their days in wealth, and go down in a 
moment to the grave:" which words many have understood to 
mean that the holy author affirmed that the rich, after spending 
their whole life in luxury, were suddenly plunged into eternal punish- 
ment; whereas it readily appears from the words, that his meaning 
is very different, and almost the contrary of this. He means that 
those wicked rich men, the enemies of God and piety, are happy 
not only in life, but in death also; since after they have filled 
themselves with all kinds of pleasures, they die without any pro- 
tracted pain, while others pine under lingering diseases, and are 
tortured with keen agonies in death. Hence then springs the 
fifth mean. 

For, in the fifth place, one place must be compared and collated 
with another; the obscurer places with the plainer or less obscure. 
For though in one place the words may be obscure, they will be 
plainer in another. For example, James, chap. 2, verse 21, 
affirms that Abraham was justified by works. The place is obscure, 
and seems to favour the papists. Whence, then, shall we know the 
true meaning of this passage? Why, we must compare it with the 
second verse of the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, 
and so it will readily appear how this place is to be understood. 
For Paul, in Rom. iv. 2, expressly says, that Abraham was not 
justified by works, because then he would have whereof to glory: 
and it is sufficiently plain that the apostle Paul is speaking, in that 
place, of the works which followed the call of Abraham: first, 
because he says, “ Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto 
him for righteousness ;” which every body knows to have taken 
place after his call: secondly, because afterwards he proceeds to 


472 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


the example of David, whom all know to have been a holy man, 
regenerated by the Spirit of God, and called by God. We must 
needs therefore confess that the term ‘justification’ is taken in different 
senses, unless we choose to suppose that the apostles are at variance, 
and pronounce contradictory declarations. In James, therefore, to 
be justified means to be declared and shewn to be just, as Thomas 
Aquinas himself confesses upon that place; but, in Paul, to be justi- 
fied denotes the same as to be absolved from all sins, and accounted 
righteous with God. 

Sixthly, in the comparison of places, we must observe that not 
only similar passages are to be compared with similar, but dissi- 
milar passages also are to be compared together. Like places are 
to be compared with like; as, for example, John vi. 53, “ Unless 
ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no 
life in you;" with John iv. 14, * Whosoever shall drink of that 
water that I will give him, shall never thirst; but the water that 
I will give him shall be in him a well of water springing up unto 
everlasting life." This water is spiritual, and the mode of drink- 
ing it is spiritual; and the same holds as to the eating of his 
flesh: for to eat and to drink are similar kinds of expression. 
Therefore as the water which causes that we never thirst is drunk 
in a spiritual manner; so the flesh of Christ must be eaten, and 
his blood drunk, only in a spiritual manner. Unlike places are 
to be compared together: for example, if that same passage, John 
vi. 53, be compared with the sixth precept in the Decalogue, 
“Thou shalt do no murder ;” (for if it be a crime, yea, an enormity, 
to slay a man, it is certainly a far deeper crime to eat and devour 
a man;) hence Augustine concludes, de Doct. Christ. Lib. ii. c. 16, 
that these words must be understood and explained figuratively, 
because otherwise they would command a flagitious crime. 

Seventhly, all our expositions should accord with the analogy 
of faith, which we read of, Rom. xii. 6. Now the analogy of 
faith 1s nothing else but the constant sense of the general tenour of 
seripture in those clear passages of scripture, where the meaning 
labours under no obscurity; such as the articles of faith in the 
Creed, and the contents of the Lord's Prayer, the Decalogue, and 
the whole Catechism: for every part of the Catechism may be 
confirmed by plain passages of scripture. Whatever exposition is 
repugnant to this analogy must be false. For example, the 
papists elicit transubstantiation from the words, ‘This is my body,” 
making the meaning of them this, This bread is transformed into 


IX. | QUESTION THE FIFTH. 473 


my body. The Lutherans adopt another interpretation, namely, 
The body of Christ is under this bread; and hence infer their 
doctrine of consubstantiation. Both expositions are at variance 
with the analogy of faith. For, first, the analogy of faith teaches 
that Christ hath a body like to ours : now such a body can neither 
lie hid under the accidents of bread, nor be along with the bread. 
Secondly, the analogy of faith teaches that Christ is in heaven; 
therefore he is not in the bread or with the bread.  Thirdly, the 
analogy of faith teaches that Christ will come to judgment from 
heaven, not from the pix. Similar is the case of the popish 
doctrine, that we are justified by works; which is likewise repug- 
nant to the analogy of faith. For in the Lord’s Prayer we ask 
for the remission of sins, and in the Creed we profess belief in the 
forgiveness of sins, and that, as long as we live; nor merely of 
other people’s sins, (for that is the faith of devils,) but also of our 
own. Therefore, we cannot believe that God will deem us just on 
account of our own works. 

Eighthly, since the unlearned know not how to make a right 
use of these means, they ought to have recourse to other persons 
better skilled than themselves, to read the books of others, to 
consult the commentaries and expositions of learned interpreters, 
and to confer with others. Such was the practice of Jerome, of 
Augustine, and of other fathers. But, in the meanwhile, care 
must be taken that we do not ascribe too much to them, or 
suppose that their interpretations are to be received because they 
are theirs, but because they are supported by the authority of 
scripture or by reason, so as to allow them no weight in opposition 
to the scripture. We may use their labours, advice, prudence, 
and knowledge; but we should use them always cautiously, modestly, 
and discreetly, and so as still to retain our own liberty. He that 
shall be content to make such a use of these means, and will lay 
aside his prejudices and party zeal, which many bring with them 
to every question, will be enabled to gain an understanding of the 
scriptures, if not in all places, yet in most ; if not immediately, yet 
ultimately. 





474 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ca. 


CHAPTER X. 


THE GENERAL ARGUMENTS OF OUR OPPONENTS AGAINST THESE 
MEANS ARE OBVIATED. 


Wuat? Do our opponents find fault with these means? Not 
altogether; but yet neither do they entirely receive them. Staple- 
ton, Lib. m. c. 9, admits that they are highly conducive, but says 
that they are not firm, certain, or of uniform avail; and that those 
who seek to interpret scripture in this way are sometimes deceived : 
which points he endeavours to prove and demonstrate by many 
arguments adduced against these means of exposition. These we 
proceed now to obviate, briefly, and conformably to the plan of our 
discourse. In that chapter he tries to shake our means by three 
arguments, 

The first is, that these means of ours are subordinate to the 
means which they maintain; which (as ye shall hear afterwards) 
are the rule of faith, the practice of the church, the unanimous 
opinion of the fathers, the definite interpretation of councils, For, 
unless they agree with the rule of faith and the other means settled 
by them, they are neither just nor salutary. I answer, firstly, by 
conceding that all our methods of exposition should be in harmony 
with the rule of faith, and that we must not depart a hair's breadth 
from that rule. But what is that rule? Upon that we shall speak 
hereafter. In the meanwhile we lay it down that the rule of faith 
is no other than the constant tenor of the sense of scripture, to 
which special regard must be had in every exposition of scripture. 
This mean we have ourselves laid down; and to this all the in- 
terpretations of all men should agree. Whatever is not combined 
with this rule must be rejected as illegitimate. But Stapleton will 
not allow that this rule is contained in the scriptures, as will appear 
afterwards, where also I shall give a larger reply to the objection. 
Secondly, I answer, that the practice of the church is uncertain, 
mutable, and often wrong; that an unanimous opinion of the fathers 
or à definite interpretation of councils is boasted of and pretended 
in words, but cannot be shewn in fact. The fathers do not all in- 
terpret scripture by the same rule, nor have councils defined all 
controversies ; and the later fathers and newer councils differ widely 
from the more ancient.  Thirdly, that the practice of the church, 
the opinions of the fathers, and the definitions of councils, should 
be examined by the standard of scripture, not the contrary. It is 


om] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 475 


therefore a preposterous proceeding to interpret scripture by these 
things which are themselves to be judged of by scripture. 

His second argument is, that these means of ours are common 
to all heretics and Jews and pagans, while his are peculiar to the 
catholics and orthodox. I answer: If the meaning be that all can 
use these means, I acknowledge the fact upon which this argument 
is founded; for the means of interpreting scripture should be such 
as are not peculiar to certain men, but plain and public. But if 
the meaning be, that heretics, making use of these means, can con- 
firm their heresies out of scripture, the assertion is utterly false. 
And if this be not the meaning, Stapleton brings this allegation to 
no purpose. Now this is so far from being true, that heretics, if 
they would make a legitimate application of these means, would see 
that their heresies were condemned by the scriptures; and, in like 
manner, the Jews and pagans would understand that their impious 
and profane opinions were refuted by our scriptures. If Stapleton 
indeed thought, as he appears to have thought, that these means 
favour the heretics, or can give them any aid in maintaining their 
cause; he hath put a great and unworthy insult upon the scriptures, 
as if they could be, in any question, more favourable to heretics 
than to catholics. But the scriptures are the bulwarks and muni- 
ments of the catholics, the torment and destruction of heretics. 
Wherefore, heretics may indeed use these means: but, if they use 
them aright, they will no longer continue heretics as they were, or 
they will be absolutely self-condemned. Yea, if the heretics might 
lawfully interpret scripture otherwise than by scripture, they might 
defend their cause with much greater ease and probability than they 
have ever yet been able. 

His third argument is, that our means are human, his divine; 
because the church cannot err damnably in its public faith or 
practice. I answer: If they are called human because they are 
used by men, I confess them to be in this sense human; and, in 
this sense, their own means also are no other than human. But if 
Stapleton calls them human under the notion that nothing but 
human industry is required in their application, he is grievously 
mistaken: for with these means must of necessity be combined 
the teaching of the Holy Spirit, without which we shall ever 
expend labour in vain upon the study of the scriptures. It was 
upon this account that we said, that we should before all things 
pray that we might, in searching the scripture, hold that way which 
was most direct, and that the Holy Ghost might always shew us 


476 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


his illumination. For the practice of the church is the custom of 
men; the sense of the fathers is the opinion of men; the definition 
of a council is the judgment of men; the decree of a pope is the 
will of man, yea, of one single individual. But, say they, the 
church never errs; the pope never errs. We shall shew both 
assertions to be false in the proper place. We say that scripture 
never errs, and therefore judge that interpretation to be the 
truest which agrees with scripture. What have we to do with 
churches, or councils, or popes, unless they can shew that what 
they define is in harmony with the scriptures? And what, at the 
last, must we say that this church really is which they object to us? 
Here certainly you will find nothing but what is human, and, con- 
sequently, uncertain and altogether unsafe. 





CHAPTER XI. 
THE PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS OF OUR ADVERSARIES ARE REFUTED. 


Lrr us now reply severally to each of his special objections. 
The means against which he disputes are principally four. First, 
the consideration of what goes before and what follows: secondly, 
the observation of the phrase and style: thirdly, the comparison, 
of passages: fourthly, the inspection of the originals. 

[I.] Against the first he objects, that such a consideration is un- 
certain, because the context of scripture 1s various and miscellaneous, 
the order of discourse in the scriptures often interrupted ; that Paul 
often imperceptibly, and without any notice, passes from one subject 
to another; that in the same sentences some things are said literally, 
and some figuratively ; nay, that the same word is taken in different 
senses in the same sentence. Therefore, this consideration is un- 
certain, and (to use his own words) ** misleads the reader in many 
ways, when taken separately." I reply, that Stapleton hath an- 
swered himself. For we do not say that each of these several 
means, taken by itself and applied separately, is always sufficient for 
discovering the true sense of scripture; but that they, all taken 
together, are sufficiently efficacious when properly handled. Indeed 
we ought to think we have prospered well, if after the long and 
diligent use of these means we at length attain to the true sense of 
a difficult passage of scripture. When Stapleton, therefore, ad- 


xi.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 477 


duces examples to shew that we cannot, by this consideration alone, 
find what we seek, he wastes his pains and only amuses his reader. 
But if he join the others with this, then he will easily perceive 
what great efficacy there is in these means for the opening out 
and illustration of the scripture. For example, Gen. iii., we read, 
that Adam and Eve “saw the fruit of the tree, that it was fair to 
the eye,” &c., and yet that, immediately after eating it, “their 
eyes were opened.” yes are here spoken of, first in a figura- 
tive, and then in a strict sense. Who does not know this, or 
what end was the exhibition of this instance designed to serve ? 
Why, Stapleton gathers from this, that the consideration of the 
context, preceding and consequent, is no firm and znfallible rule for 
understanding scripture. As if we said so, or depended upon this 
rule alone! For when we approach the interpretation of difficult 
scriptures, we do not separate and divorce these means from each ' 
other, as if each were sufficient separately and of itself for each 
passage: but we say that everywhere those means are to be ap- 
plied which are fit and necessary; and that if one give us not ade- 
quate assistance, we should take in the rest also ; as he who cannot 
open a door with one key, applies another, and tries many, nor 
stops trying until he hath found the true one. Even so, when con- 
sidering the antecedents and consequents is insufficient, we must 
compare the passage before us with others, or sift the style and 
phraseology, or examine the original But, to answer this par- 
ticular instance of Stapleton’s,—who does not see that the con- 
sideration of the context is here specially useful and efficacious in 
ascertaining the true meaning of the passage? For, if one were to 
argue that Adam or Eve were blind at first, because their eves are 
said to have been opened after they had tasted of the fruit, he 
might be easily refuted from the words immediately preceding. 
For the woman saw the fruit, which was in appearance fair and 
delightful; and this must needs be so understood as to imply that 
Eve really had eyes and the power of vision, since she was so 
influenced by this sight as to be unable to restrain herself from 
immediately gratifying her desires: and consequently, what follows 
concerning the opening of their eyes can only be taken figuratively, 
Thus the place itself shews, that this second statement must be 
understood of some other kind of seeing. Stapleton brings another 
example from Ps. xxii: Deus, Deus meus, respice in me; quare 
me derelinquisti ? Longe a salute mea verba delictorum meorum. 
These words, says he, are spoken in the person of his body and of 


478 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


the whole church: upon which point we will plainly refute him by 
the application of two of our means, the comparison of places, and 
the examination of the originals. For, first, in Matth. xxvii. 46, 
Christ himself, who is the head of the church, hath proved this to 
be his own voice and complaint, by exclaiming as he hung upon 
the eross, * My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" In 
the next place, if we look into the original Hebrew verity, we shall 
understand that the second member of this verse should be trans- 
lated, “Thou art far from my help, from the words of my roaring.” 
However, our opponent's argument labours under the fallacy of 
division and composition: These means do not suffice separately ; 
and therefore not taken together. 

[II.] His objections to the observation of the style and phra- 
seology are of a similar character; which, although he allows it to 
be an excellent and very useful mean, and one which may not un- 
frequently be applied with advantage, he nevertheless contends is 
doubtful, ambiguous and deceitful, 2f taken alone and by itself. 
We accept his praises of this mean, and are glad that we may use 
it with Stapleton's good leave; but, as to his affirming it not to 
be sufficiently efficacious, taken by itself alone, for gaining the 
authentic sense of scripture, this is precisely our own judgment. We 
ascribe no such great force to these several means when applied 
singly; but think that each hath its weight, and contributes much 
help, and that all taken together are sufficient. Stapleton, being 
unable to break them down when united and joined together, does 
his best to separate them, and attack them in detail; which is a 
plain proof of his distrusting his own cause: just as they who are 
afraid of, and dare not stand before, united and collected forces, 
yet venture to fall upon them when they are scattered. But let 
us hear what sort of argument Stapleton broaches against this 
method. First, the scripture hath not one, but many different 
authors, who have each their own manner of expression.  Isaiah's 
style differs from that of Amos; Peter and Paul do not write in 
the same manner. I answer, that, indeed, the styles in scripture 
are various, but that nevertheless that variety is not so great as 
to baffle observation. Although Isaiah, who was educated in the 
royal court, hath a much purer and more elegant diction than 
Amos, who had lived amongst shepherds, yet this shepherd speaks 
in such a manner as to be intelligible to all who can understand 
anything: for he had learned to speak from the best master of 
speech, even the Holy Spirit. So, although Paul, brought up by 


xt] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 479 


Gamaliel, the most learned of the Pharisees, speaks otherwise than 
Peter or James, who had passed almost all their lives in fishing ; 
yet the difference is not very great, since Peter and James did not 
learn to speak Greek in their fishing occupations, but were taught 
by the Holy Spirit, a much better and more eloquent instructor 
than Gamaliel. But let us grant that the style of scripture is dif- 
ferent in many books: yet how does this prevent either that such 
differenees should be marked, or that, when marked, they should 
yield great help in the interpretation of scripture? Certainly the 
fathers are much more unlike each other than the prophets or 
apostles. Augustine is copious, Jerome succinct; Lactantius imi- 
tates Cicero; Tertullian affects obscurity ; Chrysostom is ornate 
and clear; Nazianzen compressed and acute. In a word, they have 
not all the same character, and yet all speak so as to be easily 
intelligible when read with attention. Secondly, says Stapleton, 
the variety of the interpreters and of the originals produces un- 
certainty. I answer: Translators, indeed, we often see go wrong ; 
on which account it is not always safe to acquiesce in them. But 
there is no such variety in the originals as Stapleton pretends. 
Thirdly, The rules which respect the phraseology of scripture are 
not universal. I answer: Although they are not absolutely uni- 
versal, yet are they such as may assist the students of scripture ; 
and, whatever they be, the scripture must not be accommodated to 
them, but they to the scripture. Upon this point Stapleton hath 
used no examples, and he produces no phrase that may not be 
explained by the scriptures themselves. What? must we wait until 
the pope tells us the force of Hebraisms, who, generally, knows 
nothing of either Greek or Hebrew? A worthy judge of style 
forsooth ! 

[III.] He disputes against the comparison of passages in c. 10. 
We say that a diligent and judicious comparison of places is a good 
means of interpretation ; while he maintains that, taken alone and 
by itself, it is not only fallacious but pernicious. What then? We 
do not suppose that either this, or any mean whatever, should be 
used and applied alone; and I wonder that he did not hence per- 
ceive the egregious sophistry of his proceeding. For, when our 
assertion is, that all these means should be used, when necessary, 
to unfold the involved meanings of scripture, and not that any one 
should be trusted alone, this man comes and disputes against us as 
if we determined that each several mean by itself was strong enough 
and sufficient for all purposes. Furthermore, we require a fair, 


480 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn 


judicious, and diligent comparison ; and, therefore, his long discours 
of the wrong feelings under which many labour, of the ambiguit: 
of words, and of the customs of hereties, is beside the questior 
Hereties, and those who are led by party-spirit, or their own feel 
ings, search scripture either carelessly or perversely. However, le 
us briefly refute the reasons of our opponent from point to point. 

First: In a comparison, private feeling and prejudice generall, 
prevail. I answer: If there be any so perverse as to yield n 
assent to the scriptures when duly and accurately compared, suc 
persons will respect no authority, unless influenced either by fea 
or shame, or in some hypocritical manner. Can he who is nc 
moved by almost innumerable testimonies of scripture, appositel 
and judiciously collated, to believe the deity of Christ, can he b 
persuaded by the authority of the church or the opinion of th 
Roman pontiff? Assuredly, that man will never be a good catholi 
whom well collated scriptures cannot bring to adopt a catholi 
opinion; and such are the popish pseudo-catholics, who have derive 
their catholic errors not from the scriptures, but from the invention 
of men. 

Secondly: The same words and phrases have not alway 
everywhere the same sense and signification, I answer: Althoug 
words and phrases may in one place have some ambiguity, on a 
count of their being taken variously, yet the difficulty may b 
freed from embarrassment either by considering the things then 
selves, or by the comparison of other places, or by recurring to th 
analogy of faith. ‘The flesh" and “the world” are taken in variot 
senses, and so are many other terms. Who denies it? Br 
whence hath the observation of this variety been derived? Is 
not from the scriptures themselves and the comparison of places? 

Thirdly : Some places occur but once in scripture. I answer 
These are either plain or not necessary to salvation. For tho: 
common phrases of the apostles, “being buried with Christ: 
* being crucified with Christ ;” “living with him ;" “reigning wit 
him ;” * being baptized into his death," and such like, are plai 
enough in themselves, and may also have light thrown upon the: 
by the comparison of other sentences. 

Fourthly : Because all heretics, by using great diligence | 
comparing scripture, have nevertheless erred most foully in tl 
sense of scripture. I answer: They did not compare scriptu: 
with great diligence, but for the most part, slightly and carelessl; 
And his assertion, that “by a most diligent collation of scriptu: 


XI. | QUESTION THE FIFTH, 481 


they fell into shameful errors,” is an outrageous insult upon the 
scriptures. For even though it might be said that they fell into 
error while using the comparison of parallel passages, yet they did 
not err by means of that comparison; since, however those may 
go most shamefully wrong who collate scripture, yet a careful col- 
lation is never the cause of their mistakes. Stapleton proposes an 
example of such a comparison. The Arians compared that saying 
of Christ in John x., “I and my Father are one,” with those other 
words of Christ in John xvii., “Father, I will that they all may be 
one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee;” nevertheless, says 
he, that interpretation hath obtained, which is prescribed by the 
rule of faith. I answer by demanding, whence the church derived 
its proofs of this interpretation? Stapleton says, from the rule of 
faith. Well then, was it from the scripture? By no means, if 
we are to believe Stapleton; for it would then follow that the 
Arians were confuted by the comparison and testimony of the 
scriptures. Now it is certain that the Arians were refuted by the 
church and the holy fathers out of the scriptures, and specially by 
the collation of scripture, as is plain from Hilary de Trin. Lib. vin. 
And if this very place, John x., be duly weighed, it will sufficiently 
establish the consubstantiality of Christ with the Father. For 
Christ promises that none shall snatch his sheep out of his hand, 
because none can snatch them out of his Father’s hand. And, in 
order to give us an intimate persuasion of this truth, he subjoins, 
* [ and my Father are one ;” which must necessarily be understood 
of an unity of nature and of power. Also when Christ says that 
he will give his sheep eternal life, he gives no obscure evidence of 
his being God. Besides, as Chrysostom hath observed, the Jews 
immediately perceived that Christ had pronounced himself consub- 
stantial with the Father; and on that account rushed upon Christ 
in a transport of frantic fury, and sought to stone him. So it 
presently follows in the evangelist: **They therefore took up 
stones to stone him." This also follows, which is still plainer. The 
Jews being asked by Christ wherefore they sought to stone him, 
replied, for blasphemy, and because he, being a man, made himself 
God. Upon which place Augustine, in his 48th Tractate upon 
John, discourses thus: ‘ Thus far the Jews were able to bear 
him ; but when they heard, ‘I and my Father are one,’ they could 
bear it no longer, and, hard as ever, rushed to take up stones!" 

[! Hueusque Judzi tolerare potuerunt: audierunt, Ego et Pater unum 


sumus, et non pertulerunt, et more suo duri, ad lapides cucurrerunt. —Opp. 
T 1p SiGe 


[ WHITAKER.] 2 


482 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cu 


Then, a little lower down: * Lo, the Jews understood what the 
Arians understand not. For they were enraged upon that very 
account, because they perceived that the words, ‘I and my Father 
are one,’ supposed an equality of the Son with the Father!" Thus, 
from a comparison of places, and a consideration of the context, and 
strict inference, the fathers concluded that Christ here speaks of 
unity of nature, and so condemned the Arians by a most righteous 
sentence. Augustine teaches well, that both Arians and Sabellians 
are refuted by these words. Thus he speaks, as quoted in the 
Catena of Thomas Aquinas: “If you mark both terms, both the 
one and the are, you will escape both Scylla and Charybdis. His 
saying one saves you from Arius: his saying are saves you from 
Sabellius. If one, then not different: if we are, then Father and 
Son are distinct persons?" Thus always the catholic and pious 
fathers in every question and dispute refuted the heretics by the 
words and collation of the scriptures. 

In the eleventh chapter Stapleton adduces one example to 
shew how pernicious the collation of scripture may be. Chemnitz, 
says he, relying upon such comparisons, perverts a notable passage 
of the apostle, where we are taught that a vow of celibaey should 
not be violated, 1 Tim. v.: * Having damnation because they have 
cast off their first faith." This first faith, says he, the church 
understands of a vow of celibacy and widowhood: whereupon he 
cites many fathers and councils. We shall elsewhere have to dis- 
cuss this passage, when we shall shew that Chemnitz has advanced 
nothing inconsistent with the scriptures or piety. However, a pru- 
dent and fair comparison of a single passage of scripture hath more 
force in it than the bare opinions of many fathers. To understand 
by the “first faith" a vow of celibacy or widowhood is repugnant 
not only to the parallel passages, but even to the analogy of faith. 
Wherefore if all the fathers had said that such a vow is here sanc- 
tioned, they might better be excused than defended. But some of 
the fathers have passed a sounder judgment upon this passage, taking 
the first faith to mean, not any vow of abstaining from marriage, but 
sincere religion and piety. So Jerome, in the preface to his commen- 

(1 Ecce Judei intellexerunt, quod non intelligunt Ariani. Ideo enim irati 
sunt, quoniam senserunt non posse dici, Ego et Pater unum sumus, nisi ubi 
est z:equalitas Patris et Filii—T. 1v. p. 817.] 

[2 Utrumque audi, et wnwm, et sumus; et a Charybdi et a Scylla libera- 
beris. Quod dixit, unum, liberat te ab Ario: quod dixit, sumus, liberat te a 


Sabellio. Si unum, non ergo diversum ; si sumus, ergo Pater et Filius.—Fol. 
306, 2. Paris. 1537.] 


xi. | | QUESTION THE FIFTH, 488 


tary upon Titus; Athanasius de Trin. Lib. vr.; Vincentius Lirinensis, 
Commonit. c. 12. For they say that heretics cast away their first 
faith, not when they contract marriage after a vow of celibacy, but 
when they fall away to infidelity or heresy after having made a 
profession of the true faith. No faith is prior to that faith in the 
Trinity which we profess in baptism. This first faith hereties 
violate and annul, when, forgetting their pure and sound profes- 
sion, they take up false and impious notions in religion. And in 
this manner wanton widows cast away their first faith: for, after 
having devoted themselves to the service of the church, being 
entangled in the seductions of lust, they first abandon their 
ministry, which can only be discharged by chaste matrons; and 
then, perceiving themselves to have lost their character amongst 
Christians by their unchastity, pass over to the enemies of the 
christian faith. So the apostle explains himself, verse 15, where, 
speaking of such widows, he says: “ For some already eferpa- 
wycav oTisw ToU Zarava?." The apostle therefore immediately 
tells us the meaning of the phrase rpwrny wiotw abererv. It 
is nothing else but extpamyjvat oricw Tov Latava, that is, to 
turn from the right way, and follow Satan as a guide; which is 
what those do who persevere not in their faith pledged to God 
and in a holy profession. For to take faith for a vow is to assign 
it a sense unheard of in the scriptures. But we will speak at 
large of this passage in its proper place. 

[IV.] In his last chapter he disputes against the inspection of 
the originals, concluding that it is not now as necessary as it was 
formerly, because there is now one certain and authentic version 
of both Testaments, expressly approved by the church in a general 
council. I answer, that the synagogue of antichrist in their pre- 
tended council of Trent did that which the true church of Christ 
never in any council dared to attempt or think of,—namely, made 
the originals of scripture in both Testaments unauthoritative and 
non-authentic, and pronounced the authenticity of the vulgate Latin 
version, than which nothing can possibly be more faulty and corrupt. 
However, we have largely treated this whole matter in the first part 
of the second question, where we have proved, not only by strict 
reasoning, but even by the confession of the papists themselves, that 
the Latin copies should be amended from the originals. There is 
no necessity for entering now into a fuller reply to this argument. 

[3 Compare also v. 8: thy wiotw ijpyntat, kai €otw ámíoTov xetpov, said of 
one who provides not for his own. ] 


ol—2 


484 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ou. 


CHAPTER XII. 


THE ARGUMENTS BY WHICH OUR OPPONENT ENDEAVOURS TO 
ESTABLISH HIS OWN MEANS ARE EXAMINED. 


Havine heard what he hath alleged against the means which 
we employ, let us now see how he defends and confirms his own. 
Stapleton, then, Lib. rr, proposes four means. The first is, the 
rule of faith, c. 1 and 3; the second, the practice of the church, 
c. 4; the third, the unanimous interpretation of the fathers, 
c. 5; the fourth, the interpretation prescribed and decreed by 
councils, c. 6. These he pronounces to be the only certain and 
authentic means, Here you perceive that there is no express 
mention of the pope, which I know not whether to ascribe to 
forgetfulness or to design. I suspect that either the reason is, 
that the pope is implied in all these means, (for the rule of faith 
is that which the pope approves; the practice of the church that 
which the pope observes; the exposition of the fathers that which 
the pope follows; the definition of councils that which the pope 
confirms ;) or that these are mere means, while the pope is the 
judge who forms his judgment by them. Thus Stapleton seems 
here to overturn the position maintained by Bellarmine and Sta- 
pleton himself elsewhere, which attributes a judicial and definitive 
authority to the practice of the church. For if there are means 
of interpreting scripture, then the supreme judicial authority 
resides not in them, but in the scriptures ; and if the pope himself 
be understood to be included in these means, then he disowns this 
authority as his, and gives it to the scriptures. We have already 
spoken of Stapleton's three latter means, and intend to speak again 
in the proper place. Let us now consider the rule of faith whereof 
he boasts. 

What rule, then, does he mean? If the scripture, we gladly 
recognise it as the interpreter. And, assuredly, the rule of 
faith is either the scripture itself, or the sum and epitome and 
ascertained sense of scripture, not any thing beside or beyond the 
scripture; and so the fathers thought when they mentioned the 
rule of faith. Tertullian, in his book de Virginibus Velandis, thus 
explains that rule: “ The rule of faith," says he, “is but one, 
immoveable and incapable of reformation, that is, the rule of 
believing in one God almighty, the Maker of the world, and in 
his Son Jesus Christ, who was born of the virgin Mary, crucified 


XI. | QUESTION THE FIFTH, 485 


under Pontius Pilate, rose again from the dead on the third day, 
was taken up into heaven, and is now sitting at the right hand 
of the Father, and will come to judge the quick and the dead by 
means of the resurrection also of the flesh!.” And this he calls also 
the law of faith. So Augustine, in his Enchiridion, c. 56: 
* Unless the Holy Ghost were God, he would not be placed before 
the church in the rule of faith?." Gerson, upon Communion in 
both Kinds, understands the scripture by the rule of faith, when he 
says: ‘Holy scripture is the rule of faith, against which, when 
rightly understood, no human authority may be admitted?." We 
always appeal to this rule, and it is this which our adversaries 
fear and shun. Stapleton says, Lib. vi. c. 1, that the rule of 
faith is more extensive than the Creed, and denotes that doctrine 
whieh the apostles delivered to the churches, and which was 
publiely received by all, that is to say, all tradition written or 
unwritten. We, however, make no account of those pretended 
traditions, and demand a known, open, clear, certain, immutable 
rule. The unwritten rule is uncertain, and known only to a few; 
whereupon we shall treat in the question next ensuing. In the 
meanwhile, it is either repugnant to the scriptures, or not. If it 
be repugnant, it is to be rejected without hesitation : if it agree, 
that must be perceived and judged of by the scriptures. Since, 
therefore, the scriptures are the line and measure for judging 
things unwritten, unwritten traditions cannot be the rule of inter- 
preting scripture. 

Stapleton, however, contends that his unwritten rule is that 
analogy of which the apostle speaks, Rom. xii.*, the measure of the 
rule mentioned in 2 Cor. x.5, and the rule, Galat. vi, and Philipp. 

(! Regula quidam fidei una omnino est, sola immobilis et irreformabilis, 
credendi scilicet in unicum Deum omnipotentem, mundi Conditorem, et 
Filium ejus Jesum Christum, natum ex virgine Maria, crucifixum sub Pontio 
Pilato, tertia die resuscitatum a mortuis, receptum in ccelis, sedentem nunc 
ad dexteram Patris, venturum judicare vivos et mortuos per carnis etiam 
resurrectionem.—c. 1. p. 201.] 

[? Ne per hoe Spiritus Sanctus, si creatura, non creator esset, profecto 
creatura rationalis esset. Ipsa est enim summa creatura; et ideo in regula 
fidei non poneretur ante ecclesiam, quia et ipse ad ecclesiam pertineret in 
illa ejus parte quz in ccelis est.—p. 207. ed. Bruder. Lips. 1838.] 

[3 Seriptura sacra est regula fidei, contra quam bene intellectam non est 
admittenda auctoritas.— Gerson. Opp. T. 1. p. 521. Paris. 1606.] 

[4 kara trv dvaXoyíav rs mio reos. —R om. xii. 6.] 

[^ xarà rd uérpov Tod kavóvos.—2 Cor. x. 13.] 

[9 doo To kavów Toit croxnoovew.—Gal. vi. 17.] 


486 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. Lon. 


ii! But it is manifest, that it is not that popish rule of ecclesiastical 
tradition that is meant by the apostle, but the sense and force of 
the apostolic preaching, which they afterwards set forth plainly and 
copiously in written documents, and handed down to the perpetual 
memory of all generations. Stapleton, Lib. ri e. 3, enumerates 
many testimonies from Augustine to commend his fictitious rule of 
faith: but, if we sift them each thoroughly, it will be plain that 
such a rule as they dream of never entered into the head of 
Augustine. The rule of Augustine is no other than a profession 
of religion, agreeing in all respects with the scriptures; nor does 
Augustine acknowledge any rule save that which the sound and 
catholic doctrine of the scriptures embraces, and nowhere desiderates 
these unwritten rules of the papists. So in his imperfect work upon 
Genesis ad literam, c. 1, he expounds the catholic faith; where 
(says Stapleton) he comprises in the rule of the catholic faith not 
only those things which are laid down in the Creed, but many 
others which the church had recently defined against the Manicheans 
and Pelagians. But Stapleton did not observe, that Augustine puts 
nothing in the rule of faith which is not contained in the scriptures. 
Whatever the church defined against the Manicheans or Pelagians, 
it took from no other source than the canonical scriptures; which 
were called canonical upon that very account, because they contain 
a certain necessary, perfect, and infallible rule of all faith and 
religion. And although all things are not plainly and explicitly 
laid down in the Creed, which are of avail to the refutation of those 
heretics; yet the principles of that faith are delivered in the Creed, 
which is found more largely expounded in the scriptures. Indeed 
the first article of the Creed sufficiently refutes the Manicheans : 
for, if we believe in God, the Maker of heaven and earth and all 
creatures, then there is but one God, the Creator of the world, and 
not two gods, nor was the world made by an evil deity, as the 
Manicheans blasphemously taught. The article which teaches that 
Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost of the virgin Mary con- 
demns the Pelagians, who deny original sin: for if Christ were 
thus conceived and born, to escape being tainted with any spot of 
original sin, then it follows that the rest of mankind must be born 
universally infected by that sin: and the Creed, as understood and 
explained by the scriptures, refutes also the other Pelagian errors. 
But what are those many points, not set down in the Creed, 
which Augustine enumerates? Forsooth, he introduces some things 


[1 rQ a’r@ croixeiv kavóvi.—Philipp. iii. 16.] 


Xi] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 487 


concerning sin and the punishment of sin gainst the Pelagians, and 
concerning the creation of all things against the Manicheans. Now 
these may be learned even from the Creed, and are most plainly 
delivered in the scriptures. Let Stapleton, if he can, produce even 
a single passage from Augustine, wherein that holy father declares 
that the rule of faith contains any dogma which is not delivered in 
the scriptures. For these testimonies which he hath produced make 
mention of no rule not circumscribed by the boundaries of scripture. 
The most stringent of all is that which 1s objected to us from the 
third Book of Christian Doctrine, c. 2, where Augustine writes, 
that “the rule of faith is learned from the plainer parts of scrip- 
ture and the authority of the church? :” where note (says Stapleton), 
that the rule of faith is to be derived not from the scriptures alone, 
but also from the authority of the church. But Augustine does not 
attribute to the church the authority of determining or defining 
any thing beyond the scriptures, nor does he say that the rule of 
faith is to be drawn from the scriptures and the authority of the 
church; but he reminds the student of theology, that whenever he 
lights upon a passage which admits of an ambiguous stopping, he 
should consult that rule of faith which he hath learned from the 
plainer parts of scripture and the authority, that is, the teaching, of 
the church. Not that we are to deem the church’s authority absolute, 
but that the church leads us by her voice and guidance, and protects 
us by her authority from the craft of heretics. The church hath 
authority to interpret scripture; not, indeed, an uncontrolled and in- 
definite authority, but tied to certain bonds and conditions, so as to 
be obliged to interpret scripture not by her own caprice, but by the 
scriptures themselves: which legitimate and authentic expositions of 
the church must needs have very great weight with all the faithful, 
and especially with candidates for the ministry. It would be an 
heretical punctuation of the words to read thus, In principio erat 
Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat; so as to make 
the sense to be, The Word was in the beginning with God, but was 
not God. ‘ Now this,” says Augustine, *is to be refuted by the 
rule of faith, wherein faith in the coequality of the Persons of the 
Trinity is prescribed.” Indeed, both the scripture and the church 
prescribe faith in the equality of the Trinity, but not with the 
same weight of authority. The church prescribes it, because it 
hath received it all from scripture: scripture prescribes as the 


[? Consulat regulam fidei quam de scripturarum planioribus locis et 
ecclesi: auctoritate percepit.—p. 78. ] 


488 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


self-credible and supreme verity. Thus the church prescribes no- 
thing beyond the scripture, and whatever authority the church 
hath to prescribe any thing is included within the boundaries of 
scripture; nor will Stapleton find in Augustine any other rule of 
faith than that which is derived from the catholic exposition of the 
scriptures themselves. 





CHAPTER XIII. 
THAT SCRIPTURE IS TO BE INTERPRETED BY SCRIPTURE. 


Ir remains now in the last place for us to prove that these 
means are to be used; which is a corollary from the conclusion 
already demonstrated, that scripture is its own interpreter. For 
if scripture interpret itself, then we must apply these means to 
obtain the interpretation of scripture; since those who would use 
other means do not allow to scripture the power of expounding its 
own meaning. But scripture does indeed explain itself with the 
utmost plainness and perspicuity, if we will only attend to scripture 
thus explaining itself; and although it may not in all places leave 
absolutely no room for doubt, yet it does so in most, and the most 
necessary places, and in the principal articles of our faith. 

We have examples of this sort of interpretation in the scriptures. 
For the scripture, where it speaks with some obscurity, explains 
its meaning sometimes immediately after in the very same place, 
sometimes accumulatively in several other places. This I will 
briefly illustrate by examples of both sorts of interpretation. In 
Isaiah li. 1, we have: ** Look unto the rock whence ye were hewn, 
and to the hole of the pit whence ye were digged.” The language 
is obscure and ambiguous; but the obscurity is wholly removed by 
the words which follow: ‘Consider Abraham your father, and 
Sarah who bore you.” What better expositor do we require? 
Gen. xv. 2, Abraham says to the Lord: ** What wilt thou give me, 
seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eleazar 
of Damascus?” These words are somewhat dark, but light is 
thrown upon them presently after: ‘“ Behold, thou hast given me 
no seed, and lo, my servant born in my house is my heir.” What 
could possibly be spoken more plainly? Gen. xi. 1, the whole 
world is said to have been of one lip; and, to make this better 


XUL. | QUESTION THE FIFTH. 489 


understood, it is immediately subjoined, that their speech was the 
same. Exod. xx. 4, in the second precept of the decalogue, we 
are commanded to “make no graven image, nor likeness of any 
thing ;” and, to put us completely in possession of the drift of this 
law, a lucid exposition is added in the way of commentary. Deut. 
vii. 3, the Israelites are forbidden to unite themselves with the 
Canaanites by affinity. This might be plain enough by itself, but 
is rendered still more clear and definite by what follows in the 
same place, * Thou shalt not give thy daughter to the son of any 
of them, neither shalt thou take the son of any of them for thy 
daughter:" and the reason of the law, subjoined immediately in a 
large exposition, makes the meaning of the law still more evident. 
Isaiah i. 2, “I have brought up children, and they have rebelled 
against me," saith the Lord ; and then immediately shews that this 
declaration concerns the Israelites: ‘Israel doth not know, my 
people doth not consider.” Isaiah lui. 1, ** To whom is the arm 
of the Lord revealed ?"—the meaning of this is plain from the 
preceding clause, * Who hath believed our report ?”—so as to 
make it evident, that the gospel is denoted by the arm of the Lord. 
In the sixth of John Christ is described as having discoursed at 
large of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, and having given 
grievous offence by that discourse not only to the Capernaites, but 
also to his own disciples. Wherefore, to prevent that offence from 
sinking too deep or dwelling too long in pious minds, Christ himself 
at the last explains himself, saying, that the time should come when 
they should see the Son of man ascending up; that it is the Spirit 
that quickens, while the flesh profits nothing ; and still more plainly, 
that those words which he had spoken were Spirit and life. So 
plainly, so carefully, so largely does Christ remove that stumbling- 
block from his discourse, and teach us that he spoke of a spiritual, 
not a carnal and bodily, sort of eating and drinking. Paul says, 
1 Cor. v. 9, *I wrote unto you in an epistle not to keep company 
with fornieators:" but what sort of fornicators he meant, he pre- 
sently indieates; not those who were strangers to the christian 
name and profession, but those who, professing to be Christ's ad- 
herents, abstained not from fornieation and such-like similar enor- 
mites; with such he hath forbidden us to have any familiarity, and 
hath clearly explained his mind upon that subject. So, in the fifth 
chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians, speaking of marriage, he 
drops these words, ‘This is a great mystery :” where, foreseeing 
that some would hence infer that marriage was a sacrament, he 


490 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


subjoined what absolutely removes the ground of such a surmise, 
* But I speak concerning Christ and the church;” in which words 
he protests that it is not matrimony, but the union of Christ and 
the church, that is styled by him a mystery. Such examples are 
innumerable, wherein it is apparent that the Holy Spirit hath been 
careful that what he might seem at first to have expressed with 
some obscurity, should afterwards be clearly explained, so as to free 
the reader from all difficulty. 

Now if I were to attempt to prove by examples, how those 
things which are expressed with some obscurity in one place are 
explained with the utmost clearness in other parts of scripture, I 
should scarcely come to any end. For the usage of scripture is 
to send us, for the true meaning of one part of scripture, to ano- 
ther; so that, in this way, we do not rest or acquiesce in any single 
portion, but embrace the whole body of the sacred volumes in our 
reading and meditation. Passages must therefore be compared 
with one another, if we desire rightly to understand or gain a firm 
hold of scripture. The prophetic scriptures illustrate the books 
of Moses, and the whole old Testament is opened out in the new. 
In Exod. ii. we have the words, “I am that I am," and, “I am 
hath sent me to you.” What is the meaning of these expressions ? 
What else but this, that God is eternal and immortal, unlike the 
other deities of erroneous creeds? Now this is elsewhere ex- 
pressed without any ambiguity of phrase. Isaiah xlii, “ Before 
me there was no God formed, neither after me shall there be 
any ;” and Isaiah xlvii., “I am the first, and I am the last:” 
and in infinite other passages of both Testaments the same truth is 
most manifestly established. When the devil abused the scrip- 
tures, Christ restrained him by the authority of the scriptures, 
Matt. iv.; thus instructing his church to refute those opponents who 
torture scripture into various senses by testimonies of scripture 
compared together, skilfully applied and correctly understood. 
Christ condemns and sets aside that licentious custom of divorce, 
which the Jews had taken up from a false exposition of the Mosaic 
law, no otherwise than by interpreting the law and explaining it 
by another passage of scripture, Matt. xix. Christ refutes and 
convinces by the testimony of scripture the Sadducees who denied 
the resurrection, and founded their denial upon a subtle piece of 
reasoning, Matt. xxi. The apostle in his epistles to the Romans, 
Corinthians, Galatians, Hebrews, and in almost all the rest, quotes 
frequently sentences from the old Testament, and explains them; 


XIII. | | QUESTION THE FIFTH. 491 


so as that if we were not (as he says of the Jews) “dull of hear- 
ing," and were earnestly desirous, without pride or prejudice, to 
handle, peruse, revolve, search, examine the scriptures, to learn the 
scriptures from the scriptures themselves, and to deem no expo- 
sitor of the Holy Spirit better than the Holy Spirit himself, we 
should assuredly be seldomer at a loss to understand the scriptures. 
But, whereas we read or consider the scriptures with but slight 
attention, and follow the changeful and manifold opinions and in- 
terpretations of men, we are distracted by doubtful and almost 
infinite judgments, and imagine I know not what obscurities, and 
become blind as the bats, seeking light in the very blaze of noon. 
Let us next see briefly what the fathers determined respecting 
these means of interpretation. Basil, in his treatise of the Holy 
Spirit, c. 1, bids us * investigate the meaning concealed in every 
word and syllable!" The expediency of doing this he proves 
thus: The scope of scripture is, that we may be made like to 
God; such a likeness cannot have place without knowledge: now 
* knowledge comes by instruction," and **of instruction the begin- 
ning is speech, the parts whereof are syllables and terms." The 
same Basil, in his Ascet. Quest. 267, hath these words: ‘ What- 
soever seems to be spoken ambiguously or obscurely in some places 
of holy scripture, is cleared up by what is plain and evident in 
other places?" What is this, but the very thesis which we main- 
tain? So then, if we would understand the ambiguities and ob- 
securities which meet us in every direction in the study of scripture, 
we must consult other passages, and compare scripture with itself. 
Irenzeus, Lib. 1r. c. 475, says that all scripture is in harmony with 
itself, and that the parables (that is, the more obscure sentences) 
are in harmony with the places perspieuously expressed, e£ que 
manifesta sunt absolvent parabolas ; that is, that light is so re- 


[1 To yàp pn mapépyws dkovew 7G» ÜeoXoyàv devóv, adda mepáotat 
Tov ev ékágTy AéÉe kai Exaotn cvAXaB kekpvppévov Tov voUv éfiyvevew, oik 
dpyGv» eie edvoeBeiay, àÀAà yvopi(óvrov Tov okómov THs kNjoeos Huav: re mpó- 
kevrat npiy ópouo0rjva. Oed Kata TO Ovvaróv dvÜpoxrov pice. Spolwous 0€ ovK dvev 
 yvoccos: 7 06 yrdous ex didaypadv: Aóyos 0€ 0(89ackaMas dpxn: Aóyov 86 pépy 
cvAXa(jai kai Aé&ews. — T. 11. p. 143. B. | 

[? rà dupiBora kai emikexaduppévos eipjoOa OokoÜvra év rice TóÓmOis Tis 
Ücomvevorov ypapis ims trav ev arrows cómow ópoXoyovpévev cadmviera:. 
ER Xn D5J2-0] 

[(? Omnis scriptura a Deo nobis data consonans nobis invenietur, et 
parabole his que manifeste dicta sunt consonabunt, et manifeste dicta 
absolvent parabolas.—p. 203. c. ed. Fevard.] 


492 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


flected upon the obscure places from the clear, that no one who 
does not choose it, can possibly err and be misled. 

Origen, in his 24th Homily upon Numbers, tells us: “ The dis- 
covery of what we seek in the scriptures is much facilitated by ad- 
ducing from several places what is written upon the same subject!" 
Tertullian, in his book de Virginibus Velandis: * Arise, O truth, 
thyself expound thine own scriptures, which custom knows not; 
for had it known them, it would not have existed?.” And in his 
book against Praxeas: “ Scripture is in no such peril as to need 
help from thy reasoning, lest it should seem to contradict itself. It 
hath reason, both when it determines God to be but one, and when 
it shews the Father and the Son to be two, and is sufficient for 
itself.” Hilary, in his 9th book upon the Trinity: * Let the 
meaning of what is said be gathered either from the preceding, or 
from the following context *." Ambrose, Epist. 7, Lib. 1.5, says 
that Paul interprets himself in most passages; and likewise Chry- 
sostom, Hom. 9, upon 2 Cor.: * Every where, when he uses any 
obscure expression, he presently again explains himself$," Cyril, 
in his Thesaurus, Lib. vin. c. 2, says that * we must observe the 
cireumstances, time, subject, and person, in order that we may 
investigate the true meaning." 

But most clearly of all Augustine, in his four books of Christian 
Doctrine; in three of which he treats of the method of finding out 
the true sense of scripture, and in the fourth, the mode of teaching 


(1 Facilius in scripturis quod queeritur invenitur, si ex pluribus locis 
qu:e de eadem re scripta sunt proferantur.] 

(2 Exsurge igitur, veritas, et quasi de patientia erumpe : nullam volo con- 
suetudinem defendas; nam jam et illa consuetudine, sub qua te fruebaris, 
expugnatur. Te esse demonstra que virgines tegis. Ipsa scripturas tuas 
interpretare, quas consuetudo non novit; si enim nosset, nunquam esset. 
—c. 3. p. 204. P. m.] | 

[? Porro non periclitatur scriptura, ut illi de tua argumentativa succurras, 
ne sibi contraria videatur. Habet rationem, et cum unicum Deum statuit, et 
cum duos Patrem et Filium ostendit, et sufficit sibi.—c. 18. p. 270. P. 1v.] 

[4 Dictorum intelligentia aut ex preepositis aut ex consequentibus exspec- 
tetur.—Hilarii Opp. p. 116. Basil. 1570.] 

(? In plerisque ita se ipse suis exponit verbis, ut is qui tractat, grammatici 
magis quam disputatoris fungatur munere.—T. virt. p. 448. Paris. 1839.] 

[6 zavraxoÜ órav Te doades etry, éavróv Epunvever wadw.] 

[^ Ante omnia quando locum scripture aliquem recte intelligere volumus, 
tria diligenter consideranda sunt; tempus quando scriptum est quod dicitur ; 
persona que dicit, vel per quam, aut de qua dicitur.— Opp. T. rr. col. 284. 
Paris. 1573.] 


XII. | QUESTION THE FIFTH. 493 


others what we now understand. And forasmuch as the end of all 
scripture is, as Augustine observes, the love of God and of our 
neighbour, he therefore treats of this in his first book, and de- 
termines that without any doubt that is no true interpretation 
which does not serve to build up the edifice of this genuine charity. 
Having handled this matter, he comes closer to his subject, and 
pronounces the difficulty of understanding things to lie in the signs 
wherewith the things are denoted. Such signs he distinguishes 
into the unknown and the ambiguous. 

He treats of the unknown in the second book, and of the am- 
biguous in the third. He first defines and divides a sign in several 
chapters, teaching us that it is sometimes taken strictly and some- 
times figuratively ; whence he says that the obscurity of the scrip- 
tures is occasioned, of which obscurity he sets forth the various 
uses. Then, c. 8, he enumerates the canonical books; because, as 
he says, the first task is to know the books, to read them through, 
and commit them to memory. Then he exhorts us te seek in 
those passages which are clearly expressed the precepts of living 
and the rules of faith; since all that make the complex of faith 
and a good life may be found in what is so expressed. Having 
mastered these, which are the plainer parts, he bids us proceed to 
the more obscure; and in c. 10, he returns to signs, which he says 
are unknown either in the words or in the sentence.  Lest any 
one, therefore, should err on account of his ignorance of the signs, 
he delivers in cc. 11, 12, the general precepts for acquiring an 
acquaintance with the art of grammar, which is a requisite condition 
for learning the sense of scripture. He affirms skill in the three 
languages to be greatly needed, and bears his testimony to the 
great aid to be derived from a multitude of learned interpreters : 
but if interpreters do not agree, he teaches us that recourse must 
be had to the Hebrew and Greek originals. Afterwards he shews 
that physics, and arithmetic, and music, and specially logic, upon 
which he speaks largely, are useful to a divine for understanding 
the scriptures ; and, whilst he maintains that these philosophic arts 
are of great advantage to the students of theology, he yet reminds 
us that we do not addict ourselves to them immoderately ; because 
many, though not all, of the discourses of the philosophers are 
superstitious, false, and impious. He directs the reader also to 
study history, through ignorance of which many persons have 
fallen into error, cc. 27, 28; and concludes that the philosophers 
have many things agreeable to our religion. 


494 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


In his third book he discusses the ambiguity of signs, which 
happens in many ways: for sometimes they are taken strictly, some- 
times metaphorically and figuratively ; sometimes it is doubtful how 
the sentence should be stopped or pronounced ; upon which subject 
he lays down this general rule, that we must never depart from the 
rule of faith: furthermore, that we must take care not to understand 
strictly what is spoken figuratively, c. 6; for it is a pitiable bondage 
of the soul to take signs for things. Many chapters and many rules 
are occupied with this subject. He subjoins another general rule, 
that some precepts are proposed to all in common, some privately 
to special persons; and that these are to be diligently distinguished 
the one from the other. Then he adds another, that we ought 
not to imitate every thing that is related or even praised in the 
scriptures ; and this other, that the clear places must be applied to 
understand the obscure; which point he frequently repeats. Then 
follow the rules of Tychonius, seven in number, which may be 
read in Augustine himself. These rules he calls the keys whereby 
the mysteries of the holy scripture are unlocked. It is surpris- 
ing that Augustine, when anxious to prescribe the best method of 
understanding and expounding scripture, did not remind us that the 
bishop of Rome was the sole certain interpreter of scripture. 

The same Augustine, in his Book of 83 Questions, Qu. 69, says: 
“The circumstances of scripture generally throw lght upon the 
meaning, when those things which lie round the scripture and 
touch upon the present question are handled in a diligent discus- 
sion!" Jerome too, on Isaiah, e. 19: “It is usual in scripture to 
subjoin plain words to obscure ones, and to express in a clear form 
what was first spoken enigmatically?.” In his epistle to Pamma- 
chius, which is prefixed to his commentary upon Hosea, he says 
that “the scriptures are the sealed book,” which none could open, 
or unlock its mysteries, but the Lion of the tribe of Judah. Je- 
rome, therefore, does not recognise the pope as the public inter- 
preter of scripture. But how then shall we understand the 
scriptures? He subjoins: * We must pray to the Lord, and say 
with Peter, * Declare unto us this parable ’.” 

Why should I enumerate other authors, even papists? Gerson, 


[! Solet circumstantia scripturee illuminare sententiam, cum ea que 
circa scripturam sunt, presentem questionem contingentia, diligenti discus- 
sione tractantur.] 

(? Moris est scripturarum obscuris manifesta subnectere, et quod prius sub 
senigmatibus dixerint, aperta voce proferre. —Opp. T. Iv. p. 201. Veron. 1735.] 


XIII. ] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 495 


in his treatise Que Veritates sunt Credende, says, p. 1: * The 
scripture expounds its own rules by themselves, according to the 
several passages of scripture?." And in his book of Communion in 
one Kind, he says that the scripture is * like one connected speech, 
whereof one part confirms, elucidates, and explains another*:" and 
hence he concludes with Augustine, that “one scripture should be 
compared with other passages of holy scripture.” Again, upon 
Canticles, p. 3: * One passage of scripture can lend an exposition 
to another®.” ^ Augustinus Steuchus, upon Genesis, c. 2, says: 
“God was not so unmerciful as to wish that men should be tortured 
throughout all generations by ignorance of this matter; since he 
did not permit the existence of any one place in scripture which we 
cannot understand, if we will only weigh it carefully. For, as Theo- 
doret says in this place, * Holy scripture, when it designs to express 
any thing of importance, explains itself, and does nof suffer the 
hearer to go wrong®’.” Hieronymus ab Oleastro prescribes sixteen 
canons, in the beginning of his commentary upon the five books of 
Moses, highly useful for the reading and understanding of the scrip- 
tures; the drift of all which canons is to enable us to interpret 
scripture by scripture, not to direct us to have recourse to external 
means whenever we would expound a difficult place in scripture. 
Thus then we close this question. 


[3 Whitaker was deceived by the running title in Gerson (Opp. T. 1. 
Basil. 1488); for the citation is really from the tract, Casus contra Propo- 
sitiones Magistri Johannis Parvi: Unde propositiones universales de sacra 
pagina possunt et debent aliter exponi quam oppositiones Magistri Johannis 
Parvi, primo quia scriptura exponit regulas suas per semet ipsas secundum 
diversos passus scripture, et juata sacros doctores.] 

[4 Quarum una pars confirmat, elucidat, exponit alteram.] 

[? Unus potest passus in scripturis mutuo ceteros exponere.] 

[$ Non adeo inhumanus fuit Deus, ut voluerit hujus rei ignoratione per 
omnes states homines torqueri; cum neque ullum in sacris scripturis esse 
passus sit locum, quem si accurate pensitemus, intepretari non possimus. 
Ut enim hoc loco ait Theodoritus, 7 dyia ypaq) émeidàv BotAnrai te rovodrov 
7pàs OwdoKew, éavz]v épynvever, kal ook apinor mravacbat Tov dkpoaryv- id est, 
sacra scriptura cum explicare aliquid grande vult, se ipsa declarat, neque 
patitur errare auditorem.—Opp. T. 1. p. 106, 2. 1578. The citation should 
have been from Chrysostom. The passage occurs, Hom. xu. in Gen. ii. T. lv. 
p. 103. Paris. 1718-38.] 





THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. 


QUESTION VI. 


CONCERNING THE PERFECTION OF SCRIPTURE, AGAINST 
HUMAN TRADITIONS. 





CHAPTER I. 


THE QUESTION IS PROPOSED. 


Our Saviour Christ says, John v. 39, épevvare tas ypadas, 
* Search the scriptures.” From these words certain questions con- 
cerning the scriptures were taken at the commencement of our 
inquiries, which embrace the whole controversy about scripture de- 
bated between us and our opponents. Of these questions, five have 
already been handled; the sixth still remains, upon which we are 
now about to enter. Here we have to inquire, whether the scrip- 
ture contained in the books of the old and new Testaments compre- 
hend a full and perfect body of teaching, or whether unwritten 
traditions are requisite to complete this necessary doctrine. In this 
place, therefore, we have to dispute against the popish traditions, 
about which they are no less anxious than about the scriptures 
themselves, which they defend with the most eager vehemence, 
and in which they repose much greater confidence than in the 
scriptures. — Lindanus, in his Panoplia, Lib. ri. c. 5, says that tra- 
dition is that Homeric McAv, which preserves the christian faith 
against the spells of heretics; intimating thereby that the papists 
would be presently slain by our spells, that is, the scriptures, if they 
did not apply this Moly as an amulet. And, Lib. 1. c. 9, he calls it 
the Lydian stone, that is, the test of true and false doctrine; and, 
Lib. 1. c. 9, he says that it is the shield of Ajax, which should be 
presented against all heretics; and, Lib. v. c. 2, he styles it the 
foundation of the faith: which opinion of Peter Soto he praises and 
defends. Canus, in his Common Places, Lib. m1. c. 3, says that 
traditions are of greater efficacy than scripture for the refutation of 
heretics. Whence we understand in what account and value the 
papists hold traditions. Assuredly they do find more support in 


E] | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 497 


them than in the scriptures. These traditions they call divine, 
sacred, holy, apostolic, and ecclesiastical ; but we style them human, 
secret, obscure, silent, unwritten. Now in the handling of the pre- 
sent question we mean to observe the following order: First, we 
will explain what they denote by the term tradition: secondly, 
how they classify their traditions: thirdly, what rules they pro- 
pose for distinguishing true traditions from the false and spurious : 
fourthly, what are the dogmas which are founded upon the autho- 
rity of tradition: fifthly, we will state the question: sixthly, we 
will obviate the arguments of our adversaries: seventhly, we will 
set forth our own arguments which we use in this question against 
the papists. We shall treat severally of these in the order wherein 
we have proposed them, 





CHAPTER II. 
WHAT THE PAPISTS DENOTE BY THE TERM TRADITION. 


TRADITION is a general term, and denotes a doctrine handed 
down in any manner, whether in words by the mouth, or in written 
documents. In Acts vi. 14, the Vulgate version hath traditiones, 
but the Greek text ra €0y. By that term are understood the legal 
ceremonies, all of which Moses hath comprised in his books: for 
there follows immediately a Tapedwkev nui Mavons, that is, which 
he consigned to writing. The fathers too sometimes understand 
written teaching by this term. So Cyprian, Epist. 74, ad Pom- 
peium, in these words: ‘If it be enjoined in the Gospel or in the 
Epistles or Acts of the Apostles, that those who come from any heresy 
should not be baptized, but only have hands laid upon them, in token 
of their repentance, let this also be observed as a holy tradition!" 
Hence we may observe the ignorance of Lindanus, who, in his Pano- 
plia, Lib. rr. e. 5, would have unwritten tradition to be denoted and 
highly praised by Cyprian in this same epistle and place; whereas 
Cyprian is speaking of the apostolic and evangelical scriptures. So 


[1 Si ergo aut in evangelio preecipitur, aut in apostolorum epistolis aut 
actibus continetur, ut a quaecunque heeresi venientes non baptizentur, sed 
tantum manus illis imponatur in poenitentiam ; observetur divina hee et 
sancta traditio.—p. 211. ed. Fell.) 


9 
[ WHITAKER. | ae 


498 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


again: ‘Whence is that tradition? Does it descend from the 
authority of the Lord by the gospels, or comes it from the com- 
mandments and epistles of the apostles? For God is witness that 
those things should be done which are written! But there is no 
need for dwelling longer upon this matter, since the papists them- 
selves concede that this term is sometimes so used. Basil, in his 
third book against Eunomius, speaking of baptism, writes thus: 
“This is plainly repugnant to the tradition of holy baptism? :" 
TOUTO GaQws payeTat T] Tapacocet ToU awrypiov Damricpa- 
Tos: which is meant to apply to the scripture itself, as is plain 
from what follows afterwards in that same place. For he adds, that 
infants should be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost, kara tiv tov Kvptov vapacoow, 
‘‘according to the tradition of the Lord.” Now Christ and the 
apostles left this doctrine consigned to writing. We must carefully 
bear this in memory; for the papists sometimes object to us the 
name of tradition as signifying unwritten teaching, when in point of 
fact it denotes written teaching. 

Nevertheless, tradition is frequently taken also in scripture 
and in the fathers for unwritten teaching, as in Matt. xv. 2, “Why 
do they transgress the tradition of the elders ?" For that tradition 
of the elders here mentioned never occurs in scripture. So also 
this term is taken in the third and sixth verses of the same 
chapter; for there Christ opposes “the commandment” to the 
“tradition.” So 1 Cor. xi. 28, 6 kai Tapeowka vuiv: he had 
delivered it to them, but had not yet written it. However, these 
things are now all committed to writing. The fathers frequently 
thus use this term. Bellarmine brings an example from Cyprian, 
Epist. 63, contra Aguarios, where these words are found: “I 
would have you know that we have been admonished to preserve 
the tradition of the Lord in offering the cup*.” Chemnitz, however, 


{1 Unde est ista traditio? utrumne de dominica et evangelica auctoritate 
descendens, an de apostolorum mandatis atque epistolis veniens? Ea enim 
facienda esse quee scripta sunt, Deus testatur.—Ibid. paulo ante. ] 

[2 Todro 0€ cajós payera TH Tapaddcet ro) acrrpíov Barrio aros: mropevÜévres, 
Qoi, Barriere eig TO Gvopa Tov marpós kai Tod Viod kai ToU dyiou mvevparos..... 
ró 0€ Bantiopa rdv. eott karà THY TOU Kupiov mapáOocuv, eis óvoua mrarpós kal 
viod kai aylov mvevpatos.—T. 1. p. 84. A. B.] 

[3 Admonitos autem nos scias, ut in calice offerendo Dominica traditio 
servetur.—p. 148. The point which Cyprian is there pressing is not the use 
of water, but the absolute necessity of mixing it with wine. The “Dominica 
traditio" is referred to for establishing this latter, as appears manifestly from 


n.] | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 499 


proves from that same epistle, that tradition is sometimes taken for 
teaching delivered in writing, not by word of mouth. For he con- 
tends, that Cyprian in those same words affirms that it 1s delivered 
in seripture, that water should be mingled with the wine.  Bellar- 
mine says that he was deceived: but he is much more deceived, as 
is plain from the passage itself. For although the mixture of 
water with the wine in the holy supper be approved by Cyprian 
and the other fathers; yet it is not confirmed by unwritten tradi- 
tion, but by the scriptures themselves, and reason. To this they 
referred the circumstance that Christ’s side, when it was transpierced 
as he hung upon the cross, poured forth blood and water; and 
they rested also upon the fact that it was the custom of men 
in those warm countries to drink always their wine temperately 
diluted with a little water. However, we allow that the term is 
sometimes so taken by the fathers as to signify unwritten teaching. 
So Tertullian, in his book de Corona Militis: “You will find no 
scripture: tradition is alleged as authority*.” So also Basil, upon 
the Holy Spirit, c. 275. In this sense it is that the papists take 
this word in this controversy ; for they divide the word of God 
into the written and unwritten word: which distinction, indeed, 
Dionysius the Areopagite hath made use of. In the former class 
they rank the scripture; in the latter, traditions. They call, there- 
fore, those dogmas and points of doctrine which are nowhere 
found in scripture, traditions. But they style them unwritten, 
not because they are absolutely so, but because they were not 
written in the sacred books by the original authors. Thus Bellar- 
mine determines, who proposes the baptism of infants as an ex- 
ample. But we shall shew in its proper place, that this tradition 
is delivered in the sacred writings. This then is the open and 
ingenuous confession of the papists, that they cannot find their 
traditions in the scriptures, or prove them by the scriptures. 


what follows: neque aliud fiat a nobis, quam quod pro nobis Dominus prior 
fecerit; ut calix, qui in commemoratione ejus offertur, mixtus vino offeratur. 
Nam cum dicat Christus, Ego sum vitis vera; sanguis Christi, non aqua est 
utique, sed vinum.] 

[! Harum et aliarum ejusmodi si legum expostules scripturam, nullam 
invenies: traditio tibi przetendetur auctrix, consuetudo confirmatrix, et fides 
observatrix.——e. 4.] 

[> Tav ev rh ékkNgaía mepvdaypevav Qoyuárov kal kgpvypárov rà uv ek Tijs 
eyypapov diackadias &xouev, rà 0€ ek Tis rÀv ámoaTÓÀev mapa8ócecos Siado- 
Oévra jpiv ev pvotnpio mapedeEaueba.—T. 11. p. 210. c.] 

32—2 


500 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cr. 


We have explained then what the papists understand by the 
term tradition. It follows now that we should mention their clas- 
sification of traditions. 





CHAPTER. IE. 
HOW THE PAPISTS CLASSIFY THEIR TRADITIONS. 


Aut the traditions of the papists are not of the same kind, 
order, or authority, but admit various and manifold distinctions. 
Lindanus, in the fourth book of his Panoplia, c. 100, is large in 
discussing this question: but he treats everything in a coarse 
method. Bellarmine proposes a twofold classification of traditions, 
one derived from the authors, the other from the matter. Ranging 
them according to the authors, he says that they are either 
divine, apostolic, or ecclesiastical : wherein he follows Peiresius, who 
gives precisely the same division of traditions in the second part 
of his sixth assertion, where he says that there are three originals 
of sacred traditions: first, divine authority ; second, apostolic teach- 
ing; third, The power of bishops, and especial] the Roman 
bishops. He calls those divine which Christ himself instituted, and 
which nevertheless are not found in the sacred writings; of which 
kind he says are all those things which appertain to the matter 
and form of the sacraments: these things, says he, Christ did 
undoubtedly institute, but yet did not leave consigned in writing. 
Now we must believe that Christ instituted these things, because it 
is certain that he did so.  Hereupon I desire to know, whence 
we can possibly know this for certain. No one indeed doubts that 
Christ was the author of the sacraments: but we say that their 
matter and form is found in the holy scriptures. Now Bellarmine and 
the papists concede, that what they believe concerning the matter 
and form of the sacraments can be found no where in the Bible; 
as, for instance, what they believe of the matter and form of con- 
firmation, penance, matrimony, &c. But we affirm the whole 
essence of the sacraments to be delivered in the sacred writings. 
However, the argument by which he proves that all the things 
which they use in baptism, confirmation, penance, matrimony, and 
the rest of their sacraments, were instituted by Christ, is worth 
observing. It is to this effect: Paul says, 1 Cor xi 18: “I 


my c | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 501 


received of the Lord what I also delivered unto you:” therefore, 
we must believe that all these things were prescribed by the Lord. 
But how does this consequence follow ? Paul received of the Lord 
those things which he delivered to the Corinthians to be observed 
by them: therefore every thing also which these men deliver, 
they have received from the Lord. Now, those things which the 
apostle delivered he left in his writings, and mentions in this very 
place. This they cannot shew of their traditions. 

He calls those apostolical traditions, which the apostles pre- 
scribed not without the authority of the Holy Ghost, although they 
did not leave any mention of them in their epistles. Of this kind, 
he says, are the fast of Lent, the Ember days, and many other 
things of the same kind. Yet afterwards he forgets himself, and 
confesses that the fourth time of fasting was instituted by Calixtus. 
Here, however, we must note that Bellarmine concedes that Lent 
was not instituted by Christ, but by the apostles: whereas other 
papists usually defend Lent by the example and authority of 
Christ; contending that, as he fasted forty days, so we should 
also fast for the same period; and so making this tradition of 
Lent not apostolical, but divine. The Rhemists, upon Matt. iv., 
bring a passage from Jerome, to shew that Christ fasted forty 
days in order that by his example he might leave to us certain 
solemn days of fasting. Alphonsus de Castro, contra Hereses, 
Lib. vrr, says, that many grave divines affirm that Lent was 
instituted by Christ; and names one Maximus, who says that he 
has proved this number of forty to be sanctioned by examples in 
the scripture. But if that were true, this would no longer be 
a tradition, since it is written. Hosius, however, in his Confessio 
Petrocoviensis, c. 4, affirms this to be an ecclesiastical tradition, 
in these words: ‘“ Mother church hath instituted the fast of 
forty days!" Thus they are uncertain what to determine con- 
cerning this tradition. 

He calls those ecclesiastical traditions, which by degrees, and 
by the consent of nations, obtained the force of laws. Of these he 
gives no example. 

He proceeds to add, that divine unwritten scriptures have an 
authority equal to that of the scriptures; and, in like manner, that 
apostolical traditions rank along with the writings of the apostles. 
His reason 1s, because the authority of the word of God does not 
depend upon its being written, but upon its having proceeded from 

(! Mater ecclesia . . . quadraginta dierum jejunium instituit.—Opp. p. 4. 
Lugd. 1564.] 


502 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. (cH. 


God. We allow that this is a good reason, provided he can prove 
that these traditions were instituted by Christ or the apostles. But 
now what is the authority of ecclesiastical traditions? He says that 
they are of the same authority as the written constitutions and 
written decrees of the church. But how great is that force ? They 
will not, I suppose, put the ecclesiastical traditions upon a par with 
the divine. Yet the Tridentine fathers, in their fourth session, 
command us to receive and reverence the unwritten traditions with 
the same pious affections as the very books of holy scripture. We 
should ask those fathers, what traditions it is they mean? They 
make no distinction, they use general expressions. Perhaps, there- 
fore, they desire that even the ecclesiastical traditions should have 
equal authority with the scriptures of God. Those fathers do not 
obviate this doubt. Yet surely they ought to have explained the 
distinctions and degrees which were to be applied to traditions of 
such a multifarious nature. 

Bellarmine next proceeds to his second classification, founded 
upon the matter of the traditions: and here he enumerates many 
species. He says that some belong to faith, some to morals; 
some are perpetual, others temporary ; some universal, others par- 
ticular ; some necessary, others free. Some are matters of faith, 
as that the blessed Mary was always a virgin, that there are only 
-four gospels and no more. As to the former tradition, Jerome, 
Ambrose, and Epiphanius, who wrote against Helvidius upon this 
subject, bring testimonies from scripture to prove the perpetual 
virginity of Mary. Basil, however, in his homily upon the na- 
tivity of the Lord, affirms this dogma to be amodumparyuovytov 
TQ Tov uvoT9piov Aoyw', which is the same as saying that it 
is no article of faith. The latter tradition (that there are four 
gospels and no more) does not rest merely upon unwritten teach- 
ing: for the books themselves indicate that they were written by 
divine inspiration; and if these men seek to obtrude upon us 
more gospels, such gospels we can refute out of the scriptures. 
Moral traditions are such as the sign of the cross, the celebra- 
tion of festival days, and so forth. He makes those perpetual 
traditions, which are never to have an end; of which nature. 
are those which he hath mentioned: and those temporary, which 
belonged to those legal ceremonies which the Christians observed 
for a while to enable the church, composed of Jews and Gentiles, 


[1 sr TO THs UR LOA di a p Ady@: néxpi yàp THs Kara Tiv 
oikovopiay Unmpeias dvaykaía 1 mapOevia, To dé eheEjs dmoXvmpayuóvgrov To 


Aóye ToU prvoTnpiov KaTarcipoper.—T. I. p. 590. B.] 


. -.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 503, 


to unite into one body. But these are not unwritten: for we 
read of Timothy being circumcised, and of the injunction laid upon 
the Gentiles by the apostles to abstain from things strangled and 
from blood. But Bellarmine will say that they are written to us, 
not to them. Yea, they were written even to them: for that 
law which demands of us a mutual charity requires this too, that 
in matters indifferent we should help and consider the weakness of | 
our brethren, and abstain from those things whereby they are 
offended. Therefore all these things depend not solely upon un- 
written teaching. He calls those universal, which the whole 
church everywhere observes, such as the celebration of Easter and 
Whitsuntide : those particular, which only certain churches ob- 
serve, as fasting upon Saturday was formerly peculiar to the 
Roman church. He styles those necessary, which are delivered in 
the form of a precept; as that Easter is to be kept upon a Sunday: 
those free, which are delivered in the form of a counsel, not of a 
precept; such as the sprinkling of holy water. 

We have now explained what our opponents mean by the term 
tradition, and how many kinds of tradition they make: it remains, 
in the next place, that we inquire into the rules by which they tell 
us that true traditions are to be distinguished from spurious. 





CHAPTER IV. 


THE RULES WHEREBY THE PAPISTS DISTINGUISH GENUINE FROM 
SPURIOUS TRADITIONS. 


BrrrARwINE, Lib. tv. c. 9, proposes five rules whereby true 
and genuine traditions of the apostles may be distinguished. 

The first rule is this: Whatsoever the universal church holds 
as an article of faith, and which is not found in the Bible, is with- 
out any doubt apostolieal. The reason of this rule is, because the 
church cannot err. That the church cannot err, he proves by a two- 
fold argument: first, because it is the ground of truth; secondly, 
because, as Christ says, the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
that rock upon which the church is built. I reply: The present 
occasion does not permit me to handle the question, whether or not 
the church may err: there will be another fitting place for dis- 
eussing that subject. Meanwhile, I return two answers. 


504 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


First, I demand what they mean by the universal church ? 
For although a very great number of men everywhere throughout 
the churches may have embraced some practice or opinion, it does 
not therefore follow that it should be ascribed to the whole church; 
because there may be many who condemn it, and amongst these the 
church may subsist. So when Christ was upon earth, there were 
many traditions of the Pharisees which had become prescriptive, 
such as are mentioned Matt. xv. and Mark vii.; some of which re- 
lated to faith, and some to practice. These were universal (if those 
are to be styled universal which are observed by the great majority), 
and had prevailed in the church through a long course of years and 
ages; for they are called the traditions “of the elders." Does it 
therefore follow, either that these were divine, or that all men who 
belonged to the church held them, especially when it is certain 
that some of them were plainly impious? Superstitious rites, then, 
and perverse opinions, and traditions repugnant to piety, may 
prevail amongst men professing God's holy religion. For the 
church does not always consist of the greatest or the most nume- 
rous, but sometimes of the fewest and the meanest. 

Secondly, Bellarmine cannot prove that any popish tradition was 
observed in all churches. For, to take his own example, many 
churches have entertained doubts concerning the number of the ca- 
nonical books, as we have shewn in the first controversy. It follows, 
therefore, that it was no apostolical tradition, because it was not re- 
ceived by the universal church, according to this rule of Bellarmine’s. 
However, what he writes in this place, and hath taken from Ca- 
nus, Lib. m1. c. 4, must in nowise be passed over. He says that all 
points which the church holds as articles of faith were delivered by 
the apostles or prophets, in writing or by word of mouth, and that 
the church is not now governed by new revelations, but remains 
content with that which it received from the apostles. If this be 
true, then the church cannot now deliver any thing as an article of 
faith which was not heretofore, from the very times of the apostles, 
received and preserved as an article of faith. But the papists 
affirm that the church can now prescribe some new article of faith, 
which had not been esteemed in former ages as a necessary dogma. 
That the virgin Mary was conceived without original sin, was 
formerly thought a free opinion, not a necessary part of faith: 
upon which subject Canus hath copiously discoursed, Lib. vi. c. 1. 
But, at present, it is not permitted amongst papists to retain the 
ancient liberty of opinion upon this subject; and he is hardly 
deemed a catholic, who ascribes any even the slightest taint of 


IV. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 505 


sin to Mary. The university of Paris admits no one to any of the 
higher degrees in divinity, who does not solemnly swear both that 
he believes that Mary was conceived in immaculate purity, and 
that he will constantly persevere in the assertion of the spotless 
conception of the virgin. So Canus informs us, Lib. 1. c. 7, (de 
Maria Deipara Virgine); which custom he says is also received 
and tenaciously adhered to in Spain and in other popish univer- 
sities. This then is at the present day one great article of the 
popish faith; and it is a new article, because no such formerly was 
publicly received. How then hath it constantly subsisted ? Or 
how can Stapleton escape the charge of absurdity, who in the last 
three chapters of his ninth book endeavours to prove that the 
present church can add a book to the canon of scripture? The 
canon is an article of faith; for Bellarmine hath given it as an 
example of his rule. Stapleton adds: “If the Holy Spirit should 
so suggest.” Now this is the very thing to which Bellarmine 
alludes, when he says that the church is not now governed by new 
revelations, but remains content with those things which they who 
were the ministers of the word handed down. So beautifully do 
they agree among themselves. Some say that a new dogma, 
which never was such before, may be prescribed by the church; 
others, that the church is not governed by new revelations, but 
remains content-with those things which were delivered from the 
beginning. So that either Bellarmine’s rule is false, or these 
articles of faith cannot and ought not to be considered necessary. 
But I demand of Bellarmine, whether it was delivered down by 
the apostles, that the epistle to the Hebrews was written by Paul. 
All the papists allow it. Lindanus, Panopl. Lib. 1v. c. 100, affirms 
that it is no less necessary to believe it Paul's, than to believe its 
canonicity. If that be true, then this is an apostolical tradition: if 
it be apostolical, then it was always received by the universal 
church. But it may be easily shewn that many churches thought 
otherwise; yea, that the Roman church itself was once in the con- 
trary opinion, as appears from Jerome's catalogue of illustrious 
men, under the title Carus. Either therefore the Roman church 
erred in the one tradition or in the other; or else at least this first 
rule of Bellarmine's is not true, certain, and perpetual. 

Bellarmine’s second rule is like the first, and runs thus: When 
the universal church observes any thing which is of such a nature 
as that it could not be instituted by any one but God, and yet is 
nowhere found mentioned in scripture, we must needs believe it to 
have been instituted by Christ himself, and delivered down by his 


cA 


506 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ou. 


apostles. The reason is, because the church can no more err in 
act than in belief. He produces Augustine as either the witness 
or the author of this rule; who, in his Epist. 118, declares that it 
is *a piece of the most insolent frenzy to dispute the propriety 
of doing that which the whole church throughout all the world is 
constantly doing every day!." 

I answer: Our cause can receive no damage from this opinion 
of Augustine. For he speaks of such traditions as were received 
and practised by the whole church. His words are: “ That which 
the whole church observes," it is a piece of the most insolent 
frenzy to question the propriety of doing. But the papists have 
no such unwritten tradition which can be certainly shewn to have 
been always observed by the universal church; and those tradi- 
tions which are here maintained by Bellarmine are of a different 
kind altogether. The first is, the baptizing of infants: the 
second, the not re-baptizing those who were baptized by hereties. 
These traditions, though not in so many words, may yet be found 
in scripture, and confirmed by the certain and express authority of 
scripture. Therefore they should be styled written, and not un- 
written traditions, inasmuch as they are gathered out of the 
scriptures. As to the former, Augustine indeed, de Genesi ad lit. 
Lib. 10, c. 23, calls the baptism of infants an apostolical custom 
and tradition; but he means a written tradition: for that such 
was Augustine’s mind is evident from his fourth book against the 
Donatists, on Baptism, c. 24, where from the circumcision of God's 
former people he proves the baptism of infants. Besides, the 
same thing may be established from that testimony of scripture, “I 
will be a God to thee and to thy seed," that is, to thy children. 
This covenant is consigned in the holy scriptures, Gen. xvii. The 
baptism of children, therefore, rests upon the written authority of 
the word of God.  Assuredly, if in this matter we had no other 
than the authority of unwritten tradition, we should be reduced to 
sad extremities in maintaining the dispute with the Anabaptists ; 
for they care nothing for unwritten traditions. Yet these heretics 
our churches have refuted and condemned by the testimony of 
scripture, while the papists in the interim either keep a treacherous 
silence, or impiously, as well as falsely, pretend that they can be 
refuted no otherwise than by tradition. As to Bellarmine’s second 
instance, of not re-baptizing those who had been baptized by 
heretics ; although Cyprian contended that baptism administered by 
a heretic was null and void, (for that question was debated, with 

[1 In the new editions, Ep. 54. Opp. T. rr. p. 164. Bassan. 1797.] 


~ 


Iv.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 507 


great heat on Cyprian’s part, between him and other bishops;) yet 
Augustine proved that Cyprian was in error by the authority, not 
so much of tradition as of scripture. For thus he writes, in his 
first book of Baptism against the Donatists, c. 7: “ Lest I should 
seem to prove my point” (he is speaking of this very thing) “by 
mere human arguments, I produce certain evidence from the 
Gospel?.” In the second book of the same work, c. 3, he says 
that he did not doubt but that Cyprian would have corrected his 
opinion, if any one had shewn him that baptism is not lost by the 
hereties when they go out, and therefore can be given by them 
whilst they are without. But the plainest passage of all is in 
Lib. v. c. 26. Cyprian had said that we should appeal in this 
question to the fountain of apostolie tradition, that is, the scripture. 
This saying Augustine praises and highly approves in that chapter, 
and then produces from Eph. iv. the proposition, that there is one 
baptism, which consequently cannot be repeated. These two exam- 
ples, therefore, are foreign from Bellarmine’s subject, being written 
traditions ; whereas he is delivering the rules of the unwritten. 
Bellarmine's third rule is not very unlike the two former: 
Whatever the universal church hath observed through all former 
times and ages, is apostolic, although it be of such a nature as that 
it might have been instituted by the church. This rule, also, he 
confirms from Augustine, contra Donat. Lib. 1v. c. 22, where he 
writes to the following effect: ** That which the universal church 
holds, which, though never instituted by any council, was always 
retained, is with the utmost justice believed to be delivered by no 
less than apostolical authority $^ I answer: We can only admit 
this sentence and rule of Augustine's with a twofold proviso: 
First, provided the thing in question were so retained as to make 
the manner of the observance always the same, that is, if it were 
always observed alike; secondly, if it were observed as necessary, 
not as free and indifferent. If there were a various practice and 
diversified custom of observing it, then it was not apostolical. If 
it were observed as a thing indifferent, we are ready to allow that 
the church hath authority to constitute and appoint such indifferent 
ceremonies, But I affirm that no popish tradition can be produced, 
which was observed uniformly, and as necessary at all times.  Bel- 


[? Ne videar humanis argumentis id agere. .., ex Evangelio profero certa 
documenta.—Opp. T. xi. p. 110.] 

[3 Quod universa tenet ecclesia, nec conciliis institutum sed semper re- 
tentum est, non nisi auctoritate apostolica traditum rectissime creditur.— 
Opp. T. xn.] 


508 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [oH. 


larmine assigns Lent as an instance. But the manner of observing 
Lent was formerly most various and uncertain. Bellarmine, how- 
ever, proves it to be an apostolical tradition, because those who 
trace it back, and seek the origin of the institution, can find it 
no where but in the apostolic times. For, commencing with 
Bernard, he ascends from him to Gregory, from Gregory to 
Augustine, from Augustine to Jerome, from Jerome to Chrysostom, 
from Chrysostom to Ambrose, from Ambrose to Epiphanius, Basil, 
Nazianzen, Cyril, Origen, Irenzus, Telesphorus, Ignatius, Clement. 
This seems indeed a striking enumeration: but I have two answers 
to make. First, I desire to know what Lent he means? That 
which the Roman church now observes, or another? He must 
needs mean the former; for otherwise he disputes absurdly. But 
now it may be proved by those same testimonies which he hath 
himself made use of, that Lent was formerly observed much other- 
wise than it is now observed, in respect of the number of the days, 
the mode of fasting, and the kinds of food: this may be proved, I 
say, if not from Bernard and Gregory, yet from Augustine, Jerome, 
and the rest of the more ancient fathers. Secondly, I affirm that 
an author may be found for the observance of Lent later than the 
apostles’ times. For Platina, in the life of that pope!, writes, that 
Lent was instituted by Telesphorus, who lived a hundred years 
after Christ. They will find no more ancient author; yet the 
papists make him to have been not the author, but the restorer 
and asserter, of this fast instituted by the apostles. However, if 
Christ and the apostles had instituted Lent, it would not, in those 
early and pure times, have so quickly ceased to be observed as to 
require to be restored by Telesphorus. The epistle of Ignatius to 
the Philippians, wherein he mentions Lent?, is spurious. The 
book of Clement referred to is spurious also, and was condemned 
in the sixth general council at Constantinople. The canons which 
go under the name of the apostles are also supposititious, as we 
have proved before. Bellarmine gives, as another instance, Eccle- 
siastical orders, which he will have to be likewise an apostolical 
tradition, proving it by tracing them back to the apostles’ times, as 
in the former example. But here his own rule fails him; for the 
apostolic canons, to which he ascribes so much, name only five 


[! Telesphorus autem, quem diximus Xysto successisse, constituit ut sep- 
tem hebdomadibus ante Pascha jejunium observaretur.—Platina Vitt. Pon- 
tiff. p. 28. Col. Ub. 1600. ] 

[2 rj» trecoapakoorny pn ekovbeveire’ pinow yap meptexet THS ToU Kupiou 


wovtreias.—Ignat. ad Philipp. p. 111. ed. Voss. Lond. 1680.] 


1v. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 509 


orders,—the bishop, priest, deacon, reader, and chanter, omitting the 
exorcist, porter, and acolyth. So Ambrose, in his Commentary on 
Ephes. iv., enumerates only five, and omits acolyths and porters 
altogether. This instance, therefore, does not suit very well with 
Bellarmine’s rule. 

The fourth rule is not more certain than the rest, and is to 
this effect: When the doctors of the church, whether assembled 
in council, or writing it in their books, affirm something to have 
descended from apostolical authority, it is to be held apostolical. 
He gives, as an example of the former sort, that the fathers 
assembled in the second council of Nice taught the worship of 
images to be an apostolical tradition. I answer: That the decree 
of that council was against scripture, against other councils (as, 
for instance, against the fourth Constantinopolitan synod, which was 
more ancient than the Nicene, as being the seventh general council), 
and finally, against other doctors and fathers of the church. For 
Gregory the great, in the ninth Epistle of his seventh book of 
Epistles’, says that, although images should not be broken, yet 
the people should be carefully taught and admonished not to 
worship them; as, indeed, many churches to this day retain 
images, but worship them not. However, it is much more prudent 
and safe to remove them altogether. Thus the worship of images 
is not an apostolic, but an antichristian tradition, if we believe 
pope Gregory the first. He adduces no example of the second 
sort; for he says that scarce anything of that kind can be found 
expressly in the fathers, wherein they all agree. He therefore 
delivers the following rule to meet that case: That which any 
one father of great character writes is to be embraced as apostoli- 
cal, if the others do not dissent. Surely an egregious rule! 
But how shall we know that the others do not dissent? for 
many books of the fathers are lost, and many fathers wrote none: 
it may be that these dissented. Besides, many things are delivered 
down even by some of the fathers, which by the confession of the 
papists themselves are not apostolical, wherein nevertheless they 
cannot shew that the rest dissented. But whom shall we call a 
father of great character ? Doubtless they will hold any one for 
great who favours themselves, as Dionysius the Areopagite, than 
whom no authority can be less respectable. So these men hold 
the Decretal Epistles of the Roman pontiffs in great account and 


[? Tua ergo fraternitas et illas servare, et ab earum adoratu populum 
prohibere debuit.—p. 1370.] 


510 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


value, though nothing can be more futile and absurd than they 
are. 

Bellarmine's fifth rule is to this effect: That is to be held and 
deemed undoubtedly apostolical, which is esteemed as such in those 
churches wherein there is an unbroken succession of bishops from 
the apostles. I answer: Where then was the need of all his pre- 
vious windings? At bottom he would have those only to be 
apostolical traditions, which the church of Rome affirms to be 
such. This was what he meant to say; but lest we should not 
bear it in this form, he set it forth in other words. However, 
that such was his meaning appears most evidently from what 
follows: for he subjoins that, although there were formerly in other 
churches also unbroken successions of bishops from the apostles, 
yet now this succession remains safe and entire only in the church 
of Rome. But Lindanus, Lib. v. c. 7, says plainly (and in- 
deed he is plain spoken upon all occasions), that he cannot see 
any more certain rule than the judgment of the church; he 
means the church of Rome. However, I answer, in the first place, 
that the succession even of that church is not entire and uninter- 
rupted, as is plain from Platina and others. For Platina and 
other historians testify that that see hath been vacant ten, yea, 
twenty times over, not merely for a day, or a week, or a month, 
but for one, two, or three years; furthermore, that there were 
frequent schisms, and sometimes two or three popes in existence 
together. Nay, in one council! three popes were deposed, and 
a fourth new one elected: upon which matters we shall have to 
speak elsewhere. Secondly, though we should concede the suc- 
cession of that church to have been unbroken and entire, yet that 
succession would be a matter of no weight; because we regard not 
the external succession of places or persons, but the internal one 
of faith and doctrine. Thirdly, an unbroken succession may be 
found in other churches also. Our adversary will require to know 
in what? In the Greek churches. If he demand a particular 
example, I instance in the most noble of them all, that of Con- 
stantinople, which was formerly called New Rome, and always 
stood upon a par with Rome in dignity. Nicephorus, in his 
History, Lib. vi. e. 6, describes the series of the Constantinopolitan 
bishops from Andrew the apostle down to his own time. This also 


[! viz. That of Constance, which assembled in 1414. The popes deposed 
were, John XXIIL, Gregory XIL, and Benedict XIII. The pope elected 
was Otto de Colonna, who took the name of Martin V.] 


iv.] 3 QUESTION THE SIXTH. 511 


was less interrupted than the Roman succession: for there were 
smaller intervals and less schisms in this church than in the church 
of Rome. But, because they can produce no traditions which suit 
exactly the preceding rules, they add this fifth one, in which they 
repose much more confidence than in the rest. How greatly they 
are deceived in this, appears from what we have said, and said but 
briefly, since these matters will demand a longer and more accurate 
discussion in their proper place. 

So much then upon the rules which Bellarmine hath prescribed 
for distinguishing true from false traditions. 





CHAPTER V. 


WHAT DOGMAS ARE DEFENDED BY THE PAPISTS BY THE 
AUTHORITY OF TRADITIONS, 


Ir now remains that we inquire, what are those dogmas and 
institutions which the papists affirm are to be defended by the 
authority, not of scripture, but of unwritten traditions. It is but 
fit that we should have this matter perfectly cleared up. No one, 
however, as far as I know, hath drawn up a catalogue of them; 
but they only affirm in general, that whatever they teach or do 
which is not found in scripture, is to be placed in the rank of 
traditions. The Tridentine fathers, Sess. 4, content themselves 
with ordering traditions to be received with the same pious 
affections as the holy scriptures. 

In the meanwhile they explain not what these traditions are; 
which explanation ought certainly to have been made. If there 
were extant a definite enumeration and list of these traditions, one 
would readily perceive that all the peculiar doctrines and practices 
of the papists, or at least most of them, are derived from some other 
source besides the scriptures. Now why are these monuments, so 
sacred and so necessary, not published? Peter Soto, a popish 
author of great name, in his book against Brentius, says, that all 
those observances, the beginning, author, and origin of which can- 
not be found in scripture, are apostolical traditions. Of this kind, 
says he, are the oblation of the sacrifice of the altar, the unction of 
chrism, invocation of saints, prayers for the dead, the primacy of 
the Roman bishops, the consecration of water in baptism, the whole 


512 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


sacrament of confirmation, orders, matrimony, penance and extreme 
unction, the merit of works, the necessity of satisfaction, the neces- 
sity of enumerating one’s sins to the priest. Thus he. But perhaps 
other papists will not make equally large concessions. Nay, I may 
say that all will, with the sole exception of the point of the merit of 
works. We accept this confession, and congratulate ourselves upon 
having to deal with adversaries who openly confess that none of 
these things rest upon any certain authority of scripture. Hence 
it is evident that, if not all, yet the most important dogmas of the 
papists depend upon tradition, although, for the sake of appearance, 
they generally cite scripture in defence of them; but if they re- 
posed any real confidence in the scriptural proofs, they would not 
press the slight and nerveless authority of tradition. 

Canisius, in his Catechism, c. 5, (de Precept. Eccles.) says that 
the worship of images, stated fasts, Lent, all the rites in the office 
of the mass, prayers and offerings for the dead, are traditions; inas- 
much as these, and some others, are incapable of being defended upon 
the foot of scripture alone: but he does not tell us what those others 
are. But the author who has spoken most clearly and copiously upon 
this subject is Lindanus, in his Panoplia, Lib. 1v. c. 100, wherein he 
comprises a farrago of traditions, upon which I beseech you to cast 
your eyes. Meanwhile I remark, that he enumerates amongst tra- 
ditions the fact of Peter's having been at Rome. Thus we derive 
from tradition both points, Peter's having been at Rome as well as 
his primacy. However, he enumerates his traditions with still 
greater accuracy and distinctness at the end of that book, table C; 
although there he hath omitted some, and set down some, as tra- 
ditions, which are found in scripture, as the baptism of infants and 
original sin. He counts also amongst traditions the seven sacraments. 
This tradition rests upon the authority of the council of Florence, 
held about a century ago. Verily, an ancient authority this for 
a tradition! He enumerates besides, the consecration of water and 
oil in baptism, the real presence, communion in one kind, the eucha- 
rist being a sacrifice, its reservation and adoration, private masses, 
confession of sins, satisfaction, and indulgences. There is scarcely 
any thing omitted, which is controverted between them and us. 
Over and above these traditions, Peresius adds, part 3, the celibacy 
of priests. But the papists are too shrewd to venture upon fixing 
any certain list and catalogue of these traditions, but leave free to 
themselves the power of having recourse to tradition in every ques- 
tion. When therefore they allege scripture in proof of these things, 


v. | | QUESTION THE SIXTH, 513 


they do violence to their own consciences; inasmuch as they know 
well, and even confess plainly, that these things are such as must be 
proved by a silent tradition, and not by the testimony of scripture. 
Our assertion, therefore, that these things cannot be established by 
scripture, is allowed by our adversaries themselves. I come now 
to the state of the question. 





CHAPTER: VL 
THE STATE OF THE QUESTION IS LAID DOWN. 


WE say, in the first place, that every thing which the apostles 
either taught or did is not contained in the books of the old and 
new Testaments. We allow besides, that Christ said and did many 
things which are not written. Out of twelve apostles seven wrote 
nothing, who yet orally taught, and did many things in many 
places; for they were commanded to go into all the world, and 
preach the gospel to all nations: which command they sedulously 
performed. Indeed, it is plain from the last chapter of John, that 
all the things which Christ did are not committed to writing. 
Furthermore, we confess that the apostles established in the several 
churches some rites and customs, for the sake of order and decency, 
which they did not consign in their writings, because those rites 
were not to be perpetual, but free, and such as might be changed 
as convenience and the times required. Now that some such rites, 
suited to the seemly polity of the church, were prescribed by them, 
is manifest from 1 Cor. xi. and xiv. We have, however, in scripture 
only this general rule, that all those rites should be directed to the 
end of securing edification and decency, but the particular rites 
themselves are not set forth. But we say that all things that are 
necessary, whether they regard either faith or practice, are plainly 
and abundantly explained in the scriptures. Hence we say that 
the sum of our religion is written, being precisely the same as the 
teaching of those apostles who wrote nothing. For those who wrote 
not taught absolutely the same gospel as those who wrote: all 
preached the same Christ, and the same gospel, and the same way 
of salvation. Although indeed the precise words which they spoke 
are not extant, yet, as far as the thing itself and subject-matter is 


[ WHITAKER. | BS 


514 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


concerned, that same unwritten preaching of the apostles is found in 
scripture: all the words, indeed, of Peter, John and the rest, are 
not written down, yet the substance of that teaching which those 
apostles delivered is found in the scriptures. Thus, although Christ 
said and did many things which are not written, yet the sum of 
all Christ's words and works is consigned in the monuments of 
scripture. It is without reason, therefore, that Bellarmine accuses 
Brentius and Chemnitz of inconsistency, when they call it a piece of 
signal impudence to compare unwritten traditions with written, or 
affirm both to have the like authority; and yet confess at the same 
time, that Christ and his apostles taught many things which are not 
written. This is a mere cavil: for although every single thing they 
said and did be not written (for which no books would have been 
sufficient), yet nothing necessary hath been omitted; and, when the 
chief heads and doctrines are written so clearly, it might be said 
with perfect truth that all is written. He who compares these un- 
written things with the written, does only in other words praise 
the written teaching. But Brentius and Chemnitz affirm him to be 
at once rash and impious, who would venture to set any unwritten 
doctrine upon a par in point of authority with the scriptures: 
wherein they say nothing that is not perfectly consistent with itself . 
and with right reason. Bellarmine proceeds to censure some lies 
(as he calls them) of Chemnitz and Calvin, which I will not ex- 
amine in this place: most of them will recur again and be handled 
in their proper places. 

Bellarmine states the question thus: We, says he, assert that 
the whole necessary doctrine, whether regarding faith or practice, 
is not expressly contained in scripture; and consequently that, 
besides the written word of God, we require also the unwritten 
word of God, that is, divine and apostolical traditions. They, that 
is, the heretics (meaning us), assert that all things which pertain 
to faith and morals are contained in the written word, and that 
there is no need of traditions. I answer: The word expressly is 
ambiguous. If he mean that we affirm all things to be contained 
directly and in so many words in scripture, he states the question 
wrongly. But if he mean under the term expressly to include what 
is inferred and deduced by necessary argument from the scriptures, 
we accept his statement. For if that which is directly laid down 
in scripture be true, then that also which is deduced from it by 
necessary consequence must needs be true also. So Nazianzen 
rules, in his fifth book of theology, where he writes concerning 


VI. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 515 


the Holy Spirit: ‘“ Inferences from scripture stand on the same 
footing with the actual words of scripture!.” Some things are not, 
and yet are said in scripture to be; as that God sits, that he hath - 
ears and eyes. Some are, and yet are not said, that is, expressly 
and in so many words; as that the Holy Ghost is God; while 
nevertheless something is said from which they may be certainly 
collected or inferred, even as he who says twice five says ten, and 
he who says twice two says four, though not in so many words. 
Some neither are nor are said. Lastly, some both are and are 
said. This division is Nazianzen's own: ra pév ovK éoTl, AéryeTaL 
dé’ ra Ó OvTa ov AéryeTar’ Ta 06 OVTE &oTw, OVTE Aéryerav TA OE 
áp. kai 6o Tt kal A€éryerar. So we say that all necessary things 
are contained in scripture, though not always in express terms. 
For example, infant baptism and original sin are not propounded 
directly and in set terms in the Bible, and yet they may be inferred 
from it by the strictest reasoning. Thus, to comprise the whole 
matter in a few words, we say that all things appertaining to faith 
and morals may be learned and derived from scripture, so as that 
traditions are in no way requisite. They, on the contrary, say 
that all things necessary to faith and manners are not contained in 
the written word of God, and that therefore traditions are necessa- 
rily required. There is no need of saying more upon the state of 
the question. It follows now that we set forth and weigh the 
arguments upon both sides. 





CHAPTER VII. 


THE ARGUMENTS OF OUR ADVERSARIES, WHEREBY THEY PROVE THAT 
THE SCRIPTURES WITHOUT TRADITION ARE NEITHER NECES- 
SARY NOR SUFFICIENT. 


Ar length our Jesuit opponent approaches the question itself, 
- taking upon himself to make good two positions: First, that the 
scriptures are not necessary nor sufficient without traditions. 
Secondly, that there are many apostolical traditions respecting both 
faith and practice. He proceeds to prove them both in regular 
order. The first is manifestly twofold; first, that scripture is not 
necessary ; and secondly, that it is not sufficient without tradition. 


[! Opp. T. r. p. 605. c.] 
33—2 


516 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


In the First place, he proves that scripture is not necessary ; 
wherein you see to what a pass the thing is brought. For he makes 
tradition in such a sense necessary as to make scripture unneces- 
sary, thus preferring tradition to scripture as a necessary thing to 
an unnecessary one. O Jesuit, what art thou doing, or what thing 
is this that thou attemptest ? Thou deniest the scriptures to be 
necessary, and, not satisfied with a mere denial, thou seekest even 
to prove and to establish the charge. How couldest thou wish 
thus to commence this dispute with blasphemy ? Here we under- 
stand what noble and honourable thoughts our adversaries enter- 
tain of the scriptures, when they say that they may be done without, 
that they may be set aside, that they are not necessary. Here 
he makes use of but one argument, but drawn from various times 
in the church’s history. 

In the first place he says, that there was no scripture from 
Adam to Moses, and yet, that there was then the word of God and 
pure religion; and that therefore the scriptures are not absolutely 
necessary. He proves the antecedent from there being no mention 
of scripture in the book of Genesis; while in Gen. xviii. God says, 
* | know that Abraham will teach his children." Thus, says he, 
religion was preserved pure for two thousand years before Christ 
without scriptures: why then might it not have been preserved 
also for fifteen hundred years after Christ? I answer: I will not 
contest the truth of his assertion that there was no scripture 
before Moses, as I perceive that the same thing is said by Chryso- 
stom in his 1st homily upon Matthew, and also by Theophylact. 
Augustine, however, in the 15th book of his City of God, c. 23, 
affirms that something was written by Enoch!. And Josephus, 
Antiquit. Lib. 1. c. 3, tells us that the posterity of Adam before 
the flood erected two columns, one of stone, and the other of brick, 
and engraved certain inscriptions on them*®, Pliny indeed affirms 
the use of written characters to have subsisted always, Lib. vir. c. 
56°. And Sixtus Senensis, Biblioth. Lib. u., thinks that “the book 
of the wars of the Lord” was more ancient than the books of Moses. 
However, I concede that there was no scripture more ancient than 


[1 Scripsisse quidem nonnulla divina Enoch illum septimum ab Adam 
negare non possumus.] 

[2 orndas Oo souápevou THY pev ex mAivÜov, thy OÓ'  érépav ex A(&ov, 
dpQorépats évéypayyav ta evpnyeva.—Lib. 1. c. 2. $ 3.] 

[? Literas semper arbitror Assyrias fuisse. Where Perionius and some 
others read, Assyriis. | 


VII. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 517 


the books of Moses, and that religion remained pure for so many 
years without scripture. What follows from that? Are the scrip- 
tures, therefore, unnecessary ? By no means. For I perceive a 
twofold fallacy in this argument. The first lies in the consequent. 
Our opponent disputes thus: Scripture is not absolutely necessary ; 
therefore it is not necessary at all. But here lies the Jesuit’s 
error: for it is not every necessity that is absolute ; some is only 
hypothetical. God could teach us without the holy scriptures, and 
lead us to eternal life; but he chose to propound his teaching to 
us in the scriptures. This, therefore, being supposed, it is neces- 
sary that we learn and derive the will and doctrine of God from 
the scriptures. Thus, not even food is simply necessary, because 
God could easily nourish us without food; but only hypothetically. 
God indeed formerly shewed himself familiarly to our fathers, and, 
in a manner, conversed constantly with some distinguished men, to 
whom he immediately disclosed his will; and then I confess that 
the scriptures were not necessary: but afterwards he changed 
this method of teaching his church, and chose that his will should 
be committed to writing; and then scripture began to be necessary. 
The second fallacy is mistaking the question: for the time is 
changed, when he argues thus: Scripture was once not neces- 
sary; therefore it is also unnecessary now. ‘This reasoning is 
inconsequential. For though God once taught his church by 
oral instruction, yet now he hath pleased to choose another mode 
of teaching his people. These times, therefore, and those bear 
very different relations to the matter in hand. God hath now 
seen fit that all that teaching which he delivered of old orally to 
the fathers should be committed to books and writing. And the 
reason of the change was to provide more completely for the pure 
and uncorrupted preservation of his teaching. For doctrine de- 
livered only orally without writing could not be so easily saved 
from corruptions; and in fact it was soon depraved, and God's re- 
ligion remained in its integrity with very few, so as that God was 
compelled frequently to repeat and renew it over and over again. 
The scriptures, therefore, are necessary to us, because God foresaw 
that we should need, for preserving the integrity of true religion, 
to have the scriptures in our hands; so that to think otherwise is 
to accuse God of thoughtlessness or error. 

The Jesuit next proceeds to the second age of the church, which 
intervened between Moses and Christ; wherein he cannot deny that 
scriptures were published by the holy prophets, which he never- 


518 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cn. 


theless maintains to have been unnecessary. For he says in the 
first place, that at that time the scriptures belonged exclusively to 
the Jews, while yet there were, even amongst the Gentiles, religi- 
ous persons who had not the scriptures in their hands, as is plain 
from the case of Job and his friends. To this purpose he alleges 
Augustine on Original Sin, Lib. 1. c. 24; and in the City of God, 
Lib. xvi. c. 47. I answer: We confess that there were amongst 
the Gentiles some pious persons really zealous for true religion: 
but that the scriptures were read by such persons, is also clear 
from the story of the eunuch in Acts vii. Besides, the number of 
such persons as the Jesuit mentions was very small. And, how- 
ever the case be, those who appertained to the church were 
not ignorant of the scriptures. In the second place, he says that, 
although the Jews used to read the scriptures, yet they used 
tradition more than scripture: as appears from Ps. xliv. 1, 2, and 
]xxviii. 9, 4, where we read that fathers related the works of God to 
their children; and from Deut. vi. 20, where the fathers are com- 
manded to tell their children, when their children should ask them, 
what great things God had done in their behalf. I reply, that no 
conclusion can be drawn from such testimonies as these. For what 
if parents were commanded to tell God’s works to their children, 
and children to ask them of their parents? Those things which the 
parents related were also set forth in scripture. In Ps. xliv. the 
prophet shews what it was they had heard from their fathers ; for 
it follows that God had cast forth the nations before them, and 
planted them in. Now, this is all written: every thing recited in 
Ps. Ixxviii. is also written; as the deliverance of the people from 
Egypt, &c. In the sixth chapter of Deuteronomy the people are 
commanded to converse about the scriptures, and to instruct their 
children in them, Thus it was from the scriptures that the fa- 
thers told these things to the children, and out of the scriptures 
that the children asked these questions of their fathers. Thirdly, 
this sagacious man assigns the reasons why the ancient Jews made 
greater use of tradition than of scripture. The first reason is, 
because at that time the scriptures were not yet reduced into the 
form of books, but were scattered about in loose papers. The 
second is, because the priests and Levites were neglectful of their 
duty to such a degree, as that sometimes the whole scripture dis- 
appeared, as is plain from 2 Kings xxiL, where we read of the 
volume of the law being found. But after the captivity (says he) 
Ezra reduced the scriptures into the form of books, and added 


vit. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 519 


many things, as the piece about the death of Moses at the end of 
Deuteronomy. I answer: Although we were to concede the negli- 
gence of the priests and Levites, does it therefore follow either 
that the whole scripture perished, or that it was unnecessary ? 
The negligence of the priests and Levites does not prove the 
scriptures unnecessary, but themselves guilty of horrible sacrilege. 
Thus, even now the papists pluck away the scriptures from the 
people; but are they, for that reason, not necessary? A man 
should be a fool to say so. The scriptures, however, were not alto- 
gether lost, nor does the finding of the book of the law prove that 
they were. The book that was found in the temple, during its 
purification, was the very autograph of Moses, or only the book of 
Deuteronomy. As to his assertion, that the scriptures were so 
scattered in loose pieces at that time that they could not be read, 
it is a mere fiction, and made without any reasonable ground. For 
although Ezra reduced the Psalms and other books to order, it 
does not follow from that that the scriptures were before in such 
confusion that they could not be read. As to the piece at the end 
of Deuteronomy, some say that it was added by Joshua, as Sixtus 
Senensis, Lib. 1.; others by Moses before his death, so as to seem 
rather to have been translated than to have died!. 

Bellarmine passes on to the third age of the church, which 
takes its origin from the coming of Christ; and says, that the 
church was without scriptures even for many years after Christ: 
which assertion of his, however, every body perceives to be 
utterly false. For the faithful had during all that time all the 
books of the old Testament; and immediately after Christ the 
scripture of the new Testament began to be published, and the 
church always had the full teaching necessary to salvation in 
written documents. Now, as far as the sum and substance of 
teaching is concerned, there is no difference between the old Tes- 
tament and the new. The promises are written in the old 
Testament, and the fulfilment of them in the new. Nor was it 
very many years after Christ that the church lacked the scriptures 
of the new Testament. For Matthew wrote his gospel eight years 
after Christ’s ascension, if that be true which Theophylact tells us, 
upon the Ist of Matthew: wera oxtw ern THs ToU XpicToU 
avadn yews. Nicephorus?, however, says that it was in the fifteenth 


[! Ut raptus, non mortuus fuisse videatur. | 
[? Hist. Eccles. Lib. tv. c. 14.] 


520 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


year; but Eusebius, Lib. v. c. 8!, out of Irenzus, dates it after 
the twentieth, when Peter and Paul had already come to Rome. 
But the Jesuit proves his assertion from lrensus, Lib. m1. c. 4, 
where that father writes, that in his time some barbarous nations 
lived admirably without the scriptures, by the sole help of tradition. 
I answer: I confess that Irenzus in that place does say, that some 
nations, assenting to those traditions which the apostles delivered 
to those to whom they committed the churches, had salvation 
written in their hearts without ink or characters, by the power of 
the Holy Ghost. But lest you should think that these were 
the popish traditions, he subjoins a recital of the Articles of the 
Faith, in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, in Christ the 
Son of God, his passion, resurrection, ascension, &c. Then he 
adds: * Those who have believed this faith are indeed, in respect 
of our language, barbarians; but as to their opinions, and customs, 
and conversation, they are, on account of their faith, excellently 
wise and well-pleasing to God, by reason of the righteousness 
and chastity and wisdom of their whole behaviour?" But although 
some barbarous people were for a time without the scriptures, it 
does not therefore follow that the scriptures are absolutely un- 
necessary. Many persons know not how to read, and nevertheless 
hold a sound faith from the preaching of pastors and teachers: 
are the scriptures therefore not necessary? Whence then did 
those very pastors and teachers derive that knowledge of religion 
which they possess? Doubtless from the scriptures. The scrip- 
tures, therefore, are highly necessary. And although for a time 
doctrine might be preserved intact without written monuments, it 
is not safe to keep it so long, nor possible to keep it so always. 
Besides, in a short time after the scriptures were translated into 
those barbarous tongues, in order that, by the reading and ex- 
pounding of them, they might the better preserve the teaching 
which they had received. The conclusion he draws is, that the 


[1 MarÓaios .... ypadjv. é£rjveykev. evayyediov, ro? Ilérpov kai roU IlavAov 
év 'Póug etayyeuCopévov.—7. I. p. 53. ed. Heinich.] 

(2 Cui ordinationi assentiunt multe gentes barbarorum, quorum qui in 
Christum credunt, sine charta et atramento scriptam habentes per Spiritum 
in cordibus suis salutem, et veterem traditionem diligenter custodientes, &c. 
. .. Hanc fidem qui sine literis crediderunt, quantum ad sermonem nostrum 
barbari sunt ; quantum autem ad sententiam, et consuetudinem, et conversa- 
tionem, propter fidem, perquam sapientissimi sunt, et placent Deo, conver- 
santes in omni justitia et castitate et sapientia.—p. 242. B. n. ed. Fevard.] 


vit. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 521 


scriptures are not simply necessary ; and so far not amiss. But are 
they therefore not necessary at all? This is plainly what he means, 
but he dares not to speak out; since presently afterwards, replying 
to a citation from Chrysostom, who writes that the scriptures are 
necessary to us, though not to the patriarchs, he observes that this 
necessity must be understood to refer “to our well-being, that is 
to mean that they are useful" So that, according to him, the 
scriptures are merely useful, and contribute to our well-being, but 
are not necessary. From the whole reasoning of our opponent, 
therefore, we see the truth of what we read in this same author 
Irenzus, Lib. 11. c. 2, that the heretics, when they are refuted 
out of the scriptures, turn round and accuse even the scriptures 
themselves. 





CHAPTER VIII. 


THAT THE SCRIPTURES ARE NECESSARY. 


Here I will briefly demonstrate the necessity of the scrip- 
tures, although we shall afterwards have to treat that question 
more at large. 

In the first place, the scriptures contain that necessary doctrine 
without which we cannot be saved, that is to say, the teaching 
of the law and the gospel: therefore they are necessary. As 
to the law, the apostle tells us, Rom. vii.: *I had not known 
lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” There- 
fore, the doctrine of the law is learned from the scriptures, and 
indeed only from the scriptures, when rightly and solidly under- 
stood. Still less can we understand the doctrine of the gospel 
without the scriptures, because it is still more foreign and remote 
from our minds than the doctrine of the law, and our nature recoils 
from it still more than from the law. Besides, God does not 
teach us now by visions, dreams, revelations, oracles, as of old, 
but by the scriptures alone; and therefore, if we will be saved, 
we must of necessity know the scriptures. 

Secondly, the scriptures preserve the doctrine and religion of 
God from being corrupted, or destroyed, or forgotten: therefore 
they are necessary. The antecedent is manifest. For God willed 


522 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


that his word should be written by Moses, the prophets and the 
apostles, for this very reason, that there was a certain risk that 
the true teaching would be corrupted, or destroyed, or consigned 
to oblivion, if it were not written and published in books. In 
Hosea vii. 12, God says, *I have written to them the great 
things of my law; but they were counted as a strange thing." 
Luke says, chap. i. verse 3, “It seemed good to me to write 
unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,"— for what pur- 
pose? The reason is subjoined: iva ézwyvQs epi wv KatnxnOns 
Aoywv Tv acdáAeuv. Theophilus had before that been in- 
structed in the true doctrine (as is plain from the words «rep: 
wv katnynOns); but Luke chose to write for him the whole of 
that doctrine in order, that he might know it better and more 
certainly, and retain it when known more firmly. The scripture 
therefore is necessary for certainty: for those things which are 
taught orally have not the same firmness and certainty as those 
which are written and consigned in books. 

Thirdly, in Matth. xxii. 29, Christ says to the Sadducees, “Ye 
do err, not knowing the scriptures:" cAavácÓe, uy cióores Tas 
rypapas. From which words we gather that the scriptures are ne- 
cessary to us, lest we should fall into error. In another evangelist 
the words stand thus: “ Ye therefore err, because ye know not the 
scriptures :” ov dia TOUTO TÀavácÜOe, uy ElooTES TAS rypadas ; and 
so the place makes still more clearly for our side. The same is 
the purport also of the passage in 2 Pet. 1. 19, “ We have also a 
more sure (and firm) word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well that 
ye take heed :” where Peter teaches us that nothing is surer than 
the scriptures. To them, therefore, as the solid, firm and perpe- 
tual monuments of the faith, it behoves us to cleave constantly. 
In Luke xvi., when the rich reveller begs that somebody may be 
sent to his brethren, Abraham replies: ** They have Moses and the 
prophets; let them hear them." From which words it is clear that 
all things necessary are to be derived from Moses and the prophets, 
that is, from the scriptures, and that there can be no more certain 
or clearer method of learning than from the scriptures. In John 
xx. 91, we read thus: * They were written, that ye might believe 
that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God; and that believing ye 
might have life by his name.” Whence it may be inferred that 
the scriptures are necessary to us for the obtaining of faith and 
eternal life; since it was for that purpose they were written. In 
John v. 39, Christ says to the Jews, “Search the scriptures ;"— 


vul. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 523 


wherefore? ‘Because in them ye think ye have eternal life.” 
And indeed they were right in so thinking, and Christ approves 
their opinion. In Psalms xix. and cxix. the prophet David passes 
high encomiums upon the scriptures; from which praises and 
eulogies men’s necessity may be gathered. He calls them the 
law; and what more necessary than law? Now, if the law be 
necessary in a state, then much rather in the church. For if 
in civil affairs men cannot be left to themselves, but must be 
governed and retained in their duty by certain laws; much less 
should we be independent in divine things, and not rather bound by 
the closest ties to a prescribed and certain rule, lest we fall into a 
will-worship hateful to God. 

Fourthly, we can by no means do without the scriptures: 
therefore they are necessary. The Jesuit will deny the ante- 
cedent. But if we can do without the scriptures, why hath 
God delivered them to us? Thus the wisdom and counsel of 
God refute the foolish fictions of the papists. 

Fifthly, ministers are commanded to read the scriptures, and 
to be assiduous and diligent in the study of them: therefore the 
scriptures are necessary. For if any persons could be free or 
discharged from the duty of reading the scriptures, who could be 
rather than the clergy ? forasmuch as none are better acquainted 
with tradition than they are. In 1 Tim. iv. 13, Paul admonishes 
Timothy to be attentive to reading, mpoceye TH avaryvecev and 
in 2 Tim. in. 14, 15, he shews what it was that he was to read so 
attentively, namely, the holy scriptures; for thus he writes: ** But 
thou abide in those things which thou hast learned, and hast been 
entrusted with, knowing from whom thou hast learned them, and 
that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are 
able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in 
Christ Jesus.” Upon which place Chrysostom comments thus: 
** While the apostle speaks this to Timothy, he gives at the same 
time a wholesome admonition to all. And if he uttered such ad- 
monitions to one who could raise the dead, what are we now to say, 
who fall so miserably short of his excellence?” Thus Chrysostom. 
If, then, the scriptures are commended to Timothy, how much 
more to us? To the same purpose is the passage in Rom. xv. 4: 
* Whatsoever things were written of old time, were written for 
our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scrip- 
ture might have hope.” It was, therefore, for our service that 
God provided in delivering his doctrine in a written form ;—I had 


524 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


almost said for his own too, since before that he had been com- 
pelled to repeat the same lessons frequently. So Thomas Aquinas 
writes upon that passage: ‘There was," says he, “no necessity 
for writing these things, but only on our account." 

Sixthly, Chrysostom, in his Ist Homily upon Matthew}, 
expressly writes that the scriptures are necessary; and removes the 
Jesuit’s objection, that because scripture was not necessary in the 
time of the patriarchs, neither is it so now. He says that the 
patriarchs and apostles were exceedingly pure in soul, and that 
God therefore addressed them immediately, and taught without the 
medium of written documents; whereas, since we are rude and dull, 
God hath chosen to instruct us by the scriptures. Bellarmine saw 
this place, and endeavours to break the force of the argument. 
He says that the scriptures are called necessary, because they are 
useful. Excellent! But, then, they are so useful as to be neces- 
sary. Nothing, indeed, is more useful than what is necessary. 

You have heard how admirably the Jesuit hath acquitted 
himself of his first undertaking. I do not choose at present to pro- 
secute the question more at large, or to illustrate it with testimonies 
of the fathers, which shall be produced in their proper place. 





CHAPTER IX. 


THE ARGUMENTS OF OUR OPPONENTS, WHEREBY THEY PROVE THAT 
THE SCRIPTURES ARE NOT SUFFICIENT WITHOUT TRADITION. 


Now, then, in the seconp place he proves that the scrip- 
tures are not sufficient without tradition, and do not contain all 
things appertaining to faith and practice. This he does by 
three arguments. 

The first is to this effect: If the scripture be sufficient, then 
it is either the whole canon which is sufficient, or the several 
books contained in that canon: but neither is the case; and there- 
fore the scripture is not sufficient. I answer: I confess that we 
do not speak of each several book when we say that the scriptures 
contain sufficient instruction, but mean the whole canon, whence we 


[! Tom. vu. p. 1. et seqq. ] 


Ix. | | QUESTION THE SIXTH, 525 


affirm that all things necessary may be drawn. Nor is this to be 
understood, however, merely of the canon, which is now richer 
and more copious than it was formerly (for at one time the canon 
was by no means so large and full, since the Jews, who were 
without the new Testament, had not so many books as we have); 
but we say that the canon extant in the time of the Jews was 
then, and that the canon extant in our time is now, sufficient 
without tradition. When there were only the five books of Moses, 
they were sufficient. When they were increased by the accession 
of other books (those of the prophets namely), these were sufficient, 
but more abundantly sufficient. In each age and generation, 
according to the circumstances of the church, the books which 
were extant were sufficient. But the Jesuit endeavours to weaken 
the force of this, and proves that even the whole canon is insuf- 
ficient, because many books which were really sacred and canonical 
have perished. This he proves from Chrysostom’s 9th Homily 
upon Matthew, on these words: “ He shall be called a Nazarene.” 
I answer, firstly, Chrysostom thought that this sentence could 
no where be found in those books of the old Testament which are 
still preserved. There is another similar sentence of which he 
entertained the same opinion: * Out of Egypt have I called my 
Son." Indeed, the seventy translators whom he followed exhibit 
neither passage: but the Hebrew text does; with which he was 
not conversant, being ignorant of the Hebrew language. Jerome, 
in his work de Optimo Genere Interpretandi, says that both 
sentences are found in the Hebrew copies, the former in Isaiah xi. 
1, the latter in Hosea xi. l. Secondly, we concede that some 
pieces are now wanting which formerly stood in the canon of scrip- 
ture; while nevertheless we affirm that the canon which now 
remains is sufficient, and contains all things necessary. Some 
books of Solomon's have been lost, but without any injury to faith 
or risk of our salvation; as that which he wrote concerning plants, 
springing herbs, and worms, and also many proverbs. For God 
knew that these things would not be necessary to us for salvation. 
Thirdly, we deny that so many pieces have been lost as the papists 
and the Jesuit suspect. For, as to the books of Samuel, Gad, 
Nathan and Ahijah, I reply, that they are not lost, but are the 
same as those books which we now have, namely, the books of 
Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, which were written by those 
prophets. Bellarmine goes on to say, that it is certain from the 
new Testament that the epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans hath : 


526 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [oH. 


been lost, which piece he himself mentions in the last chapter to 
the Colossians. But nothing can be more uncertain than this. For 
we have before established, both by the words themselves and the 
testimonies of authors, that this was no epistle of Paul to the 
Laodiceans, but of the Laodiceans to Paul; unless indeed we trans- 
late ex Aaodwetas, to the Laodiceans.” For other people wrote 
letters to Paul, as is plain from 1 Cor. vii. 1: “ Now concerning 
those things whereof ye wrote unto me.” The opinion arose from 
the ambiguous version Laodicensium, which they give a passive 
sense to: wherein I am surprised that a man so polished and 
learned in Greek literature as Bellarmine should not have 
perceived the shameful error into which many had fallen, and 
should have chosen rather to incur the blame of negligence than 
to omit a very foolish argument. 

The Jesuit’s second argument is as follows: If Christ or 
his apostles had intended to restrain the word of God to the 
compendious form of scripture, then Christ would have com- 
manded the evangelists and apostles to write, and they would 
somewhere have indicated that they wrote in pursuance of the 
Lord’s injunction. But we nowhere read of this: therefore 
they never designed to do this. I answer by pronouncing the 
assumption to be untrue. Can we suppose that the apostles and 
evangelists attempted to write without a command or authority ? 
Was it under the impulse of some slight occasional motive that they 
wrote so many works; or did they not rather follow therein the 
authority of the Holy Spirit? Surely we cannot entertain the 
former thought without impiety. We believe that they were 
induced and moved to write by the special authority of Christ and 
the Holy Spirit: for the scripture is called Oeó7vevo-os, that is, 
delivered by the impulse and suggestion of the Holy Ghost. And 
2 Pet. i. 21, Peter testifies that holy men of God spake “as they 
were moved by the Holy Ghost.” Which makes it plain that they 
followed the impulse and authority of the Holy Spirit, not their 
own will and choice. The men were merely the instruments; it 
was the Holy Ghost who dictated to them. 

Our opponents, however, will have it that they wrote of them- 
selves, without any express command. In Exod. xxiv. 4, we read 
that Moses wrote all the words of God: and Canus expressly ac- 
knowledges that he wrote this pursuant to the command of God. 
In Hosea viii. 12, God says: “I wrote unto them the great things 
(as some translate it, but as others, the authentic things) of my 


Ix. | | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 527 


law.” God therefore says, that he wrote those things which 
Moses wrote. But had the apostles any express command ? Un- 
doubtedly they had. For, in Matt xxviii. 19, we read that the 
last words of Christ to his apostles were these: “Go, teach all 
nations.” Now the term pafyrevew, which is used in that place, 
denotes teaching both orally and by writing, as should seem best 
to the Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit governed their minds in 
the discharge of this office, and impelled them to writing as a 
thing most specially needful. For they were required not merely 
to give temporary instructions; but it was a part of their office to 
leave a written teaching, which should suffice for all ages, and 
remain even unto the end of the world. In Rev. i. 11, it is expressly 
written, ** Those things which thou hast seen, write in a book," 
eypd rov eis. (iAtov. This is an express command. If this 
injunction was given to him, we cannot doubt but that the same 
injunction was in the same way given to the rest also. Again, in 
Rev. xiv. 13, John says: “I heard a voice saying, Write." These 
things sufficiently prove that the apostles and evangelists followed 
the divine authority, and were not moved to writing by certain 
exceeding slight and fortuitous circumstances, as the papists im- 
piously pretend, especially Lindanus, who thinks that he can make 
this good in the case of every one ofthe books. The fathers were 
very far indeed from this notion of the papists. For Augustine, in 
the last chapter of his first book upon the Consent of the Evange- 
lists, says expressly that Christ wrote all those things which the 
apostles and evangelists wrote; because the apostles were only the 
hands, but Christ the head. Now the hands write nothing but as 
the head thinks and dictates. Therefore, says he, we should 
receive their books with the same reverence as if Christ had 
written them with his own hand, and we had seen him writing 
them. His words are as follow: “Through that human nature 
which he assumed, he is the head of all his disciples, as members 
of his body. When, therefore, they wrote what he shewed and 
spoke to them, we must by no means say that he himself did not 
write, since his members did that which they knew by the influence 
of their head. For whatever he willed that we should read 
concerning his deeds or words, he commanded them as his hands to 
write. He that understands this harmonious unity, this ministry 
of the members in divers offices, but agreeing under one head 
together, will receive what he reads in the gospel narratives of 
Christ’s disciples no otherwise than as if he saw the very hand of 
the Lord, which was a part of his proper natural body, engaged 


528 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. fou. 


in writing itl" Thus Augustine. Irenaus also, Lib. rm. c. 1, says 
that the gospel is delivered in the scriptures “by the will of God.” 
And Athanasius, in his epistle to Liberius, speaking of Christ, says: 
* He composed both the old Testament and the new.” Finally, 
Gregory, in his 4th book of Epistles, Epist. 84, says, that 
the scripture is the epistle of God the Creator to his creature? ; 
which assertion is also, in some places, made by Augustine and 
Chrysostom. Now then, who dares to forge letters in a prince's 
name? Much less would the apostles or prophets have dared to do 
so in the name of God. 

From these considerations, it is manifest, that all the books 
of the old and new Testaments were written not merely by the 
wil and command, but under the very dictation of Christ; nor 
yet merely occasionally, or under the suggestion of some slight 
circumstance, but with the deliberate purpose of serving the church 
in all ages: whence plainly appears the falsehood of Lindanus' 
pretence. But, if this were so (he urges) they would have 
written a catechism, or composed some document in common, or 
else each severally would have published in writing the whole 
evangelie doctrine. I answer: None of these is necessary. For 
they knew well that God would so direct their wills and hands, 
that those should write whom it behoved to write, and write just 
so much as was sufücient, and do all things in the proper time. 
And if that is true which is handed down, they published the 
Creed before they separated to go into their several provinces, 
which is indeed an epitome of the scriptures. But this (says he) 
they delivered orally, and did not commit to writing: upon which 

{2 Omnibus discipulis suis, per hominem quem assumpsit, tanquam mem- 
bris sui corporis, caput est. Itaque cum illi scripserunt, quee ille ostendit et 
dixit, nequaquam dicendum est, quod ipse non scripserit, quandoquidem mem- 
bra ejus id operata sunt, quod dictante capite cognoverunt. Quidquid enim 
ille de suis factis et dictis nos legere voluit, hoc scribendum illis, tanquam suis 
manibus, imperavit. Hoc unitatis consortium, et in diversis officiis concor- 
dium membrorum sub uno capite ministerium quisquis intellexerit, non aliter 
accipiet quod narrantibus discipulis Christi in evangelio legerit, quam si ipsam 
manum Domini, quam in proprio corpore gestabat, scribentem conspexerit.—. 
Opp. T. rv. p. 33.] 

[2 6 OuaÜfpevos Tiv madaay kal thy Kawny OwaÓnkgv. Whitaker translates 
* composuit," which he perhaps meant to be taken in the sense of arrange: 
but his argument seems to require what is given above. The passage may 
be found in Athanas. Opp. T. ri. p. 669. Paris. 1698. ] 

[3 Imperator coeli, Dominus hominum et angelorum, pro vita tua tibi suas 
epistolas transmisit.—Gregor. Opp. T. ir. col. 808. Basil. 1564. It is Lib. 1v. 
Ep. 31. ed. Benedict. Paris. 1705.] 


1x. | 3 QUESTION THE SIXTH. 529 


point as I feel no solicitude, I will spend no arguments. Indeed, it 
is nothing to the purpose; and the whole creed is contained in 
the scriptures, as Augustine tells us, ad Catechumen. Lib. 1. de 
Symbolo : “These words (meaning the Creed) which you have 
heard, are scattered through the scriptures. Thence they have 
been gathered and reduced into a system, to help the memory of 
the weak*" But of the Creed hereafter. 

The Jesuit’s third argument, whereby he proves that the scrip- 
tures are not sufficient without tradition, is to this effect : There are 
many things which we cannot be ignorant of, that are nowhere found 
in the scriptures; therefore all things necessary are not contained 
in the scriptures. The Jesuit sets forth and discusses many exam- 
ples, which we must sift and examine severally. First, he says, that 
there is no doubt but that women, under the old Testament, had 
some remedy against original sin as well as men, which supplied the 
place of circumcision: but there is nothing about it found in the 
scriptures. — I answer, that circumcision regarded not only men, 
but women also in a certain sense, For although they were not 
circumcised in the flesh, nevertheless the efficacy of circumcision 
reached to them, and in the circumcision of the men they were 
consecrated to God: for woman was considered a part of man, 
and a partner and sharer in all his goods. Unmarried women ap- 
pertained to their parents, married women to their husbands: of a 
surety they had no peculiar sacrament. Lombard, Lib. 1v., dis- 
tinct. 1, letter G, says, that faith and good works had the same 
efficacy in the case of women as circumcision in that of men, and so 
were justified although they had no sacrament. But others say (as 
appears from the same author, Lombard), that they were sanctified 
and justified by sacrifices and oblations. Bellarmine might there- 
fore have learned from his own master, how frivolous was this pre- 
tence. Besides, he ought to have considered that circumcision was 
not merely a remedy against original sin, but also a sign of the 
derivation of sin. Now it is by men rather than by women that 
sin is propagated ; and therefore this mark was the rather imprinted 
upon them. 

The Jesuit subjoins, there is no doubt but that infants dying 
before the eighth day had some remedy against original sin; 
but this is nowhere found in scripture. I answer: This is futile, 


[4 Illa verba que audistis per divinas scripturas sparsa sunt, inde collecta 
et ad unum reducta, ne tardorum hominum memoria labaret.—Augustin. 
Opp. T. vi. col. 399. Antwerp. 1701.] 


[ WHITAKER. | ee 


530 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ CH. 


and, like the former objection, unworthy of a reply. For the 
salvation of infants depends not upon the sacraments. Others, 
however, answer that they might be circumcised before the eighth 
day, if they were in any danger of losing their lives: how truly, I 
inquire not. But as it was not all who were partakers of the 
sacraments that were saved; so neither were all damned who had 
them not. If God had determined that all who died before circum- 
cision should be damned, he would not assuredly have deferred that 
rite until the eighth day. The Jesuit’s third example is no more 
suited to the purpose than the previous ones. In the time of the old 
Testament, says he, many Gentiles were saved; and yet we read 
nothing in the scriptures of their justification from original and 
other sins. I answer, that we do so read: for they were jus- 
tified by faith in the Mediator without the sacraments. But, if he 
speak of external means, there is a law to be found in the books of 
Moses for incorporating proselytes into the Jewish state. These 
three arguments are derived from that foul spring of error, the 
popish tenet of salvation being inclosed in the sacraments; whence 
they conclude that there was need of external means and remedies. 
These men know nothing of the power of faith. The Jesuit's 
fourth example is of this sort: We must believe the canonicity of 
the books in the old and new Testaments, which yet cannot be dis- 
covered from the books themselves. ^l answer, that this may be 
known sufficiently from the scriptures themselves. For the doctrine 
itself confirms itself, and bears most certain testimony to itself. Do 
we not read that the whole scripture is given by inspiration of God ? 
But, says the Jesuit, how shall I know that this is scripture which 
affirms this? And here he brings in a comparison. It is written, 
says he, in the Alcoran, that that book was sent down from heaven ; 
and yet we are by no means therefore to believe that it really did 
come from heaven. In like manner, says he, I must be assured of 
the authority of this book from some other source. I answer: 
Seest thou not, O Jesuit, that the books of scripture are impiously 
and absurdly compared by thee to the Alcoran? The Alcoran is 
replete with absurdities and manifest falsehoods: whereas every 
thing in scripture bears the stamp of divinity, and the whole scrip- 
ture plainly shews itself to be given by inspiration of God, as we 
have proved in the third question ; so as that those who are endued 
with the Spirit of God cannot fail to recognise God speaking in the 
scriptures. Thus the conclusion of the Jesuit is false. For if that 
be the true faith which is delivered in the creed, then our faith 


E] | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 531 


rests upon the scriptures, and upon them alone, since all the articles 
of faith are contained in the scriptures. And this faith is sufficient 
for salvation, because this faith lays hold upon Christ, in whom are 
all the promises of eternal life. But these men argue as if the prin- 
ciple of faith. were laid in tradition; and if this be true, then faith 
depends entirely upon tradition. In Luke xxiv. 45, we read that 
Christ opened the minds of the apostles that they might understand 
the scriptures. Whence we perceive that faith springs from a right 
understanding of the scriptures. 

Fifthly, 'The Jesuit says that it 1s not only necessary to believe 
the existence of a canon of sacred books in the old and new Testa- 
ments, but also to know which those books are. For example, we 
ought to know that the gospel of Mark is genuine and true, and so 
also that of Luke, and so on through all the other books of either 
Testament. But how are we to be assured of this? The evidence 
certainly cannot be derived from scripture; as in the case of 
believing that the gospels of Bartholomew or Thomas are not 
genuine, whereas reason teaches that we should rather believe a 
book bearing the title of an apostle, than one which bore the title 
of one who was not an apostle. Besides, how (he asks) shall we know 
that the epistle to the Romans is Paul's, and that to the Laodiceans 
not his, when the latter is mentioned in the epistle to the Colossians 
and the former nowhere? I answer: This is a fine piece of theolo- 
gical reasoning ; as if it were not evident from the very inscription of 
the epistle to the Romans, that it was written by Paul! His assertion 
that it is certain that Paul wrote an epistle to the Laodiceans hath 
been sufficiently answered by us already. The epistle to the Colos- 
sians mentions no epistle written by Paul to the Laodiceans, but rather 
hints (as we have shewn above from certain of the fathers) that 
some epistle had been written by the Laodiceans to him. This 
error was occasioned by an erroneous version and stil more 
erroneous interpretation of it. Jerome, in his Catalogue, testifies 
indeed to the existence in former times of such an epistle, but 
testifies also that it was universally exploded. There is still extant 
a little epistle pretending to be that of Paul to the Laodiceans, but 
utterly unworthy of the apostle's name. However, the Jesuit says 
that we should not only know that there are canonical books, but 
also which they be. I answer: This is indeed necessary, but not 
simply and alike to all: which even the papists themselves may be 
compelled to own. For formerly many persons to whom they dare 
not deny the possibility of salvation, entertained doubts concerning 

34—2 


532 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


some of the canonical books. This was therefore not necessary to 
them. Indeed, there is no consequence in this argument, The 
Holy Spirit recognises all the canonieal books; therefore all who 
have the Holy Spirit recognise them. For the Holy Spirit does 
not produce the same effect in all persons, nor have all the same 
measure of the Spirit. Thus all who have the Holy Spirit do not 
determine exactly alike concerning all the parts of religion. Some 
know Christ more perfectly, and some less; and this also is to be 
ascribed to the Holy Spirit, for **no one can say that Jesus is the 
Lord but by the Holy Ghost," and even many papists have removed 
the apocryphal books from the canon of scripture. Secondly, I an- 
swer, that this very thing may be learned from the scriptures, namely 
from the very books themselves, as that the gospel of Mark is true, 
and so also that of Luke, and so the epistle of Paul to the Romans. 
For the books themselves prove themselves by their own testimony. 
The purity, the truth, the wonderful character impressed upon these 
writings, prove, at least to all those that have the Holy Spirit, that 
they emanated from God and his holy inspiration. For it is only 
they who have received the Holy Spirit that can hear, recognise, 
and understand his voice. Then, secondarily, these books are con- 
firmed by the authority of the church which hath received these 
books, but constantly rejected those others, such as the gospels of 
Bartholomew and Thomas. This, however, is only a secondary evi- 
dence. Augustine, de Consent. Evangelist. Lib. r. c. 1, replies to 
a similar objection, namely, why the same faith is not reposed in the 
other authors who wrote accounts of Christ and the apostles? and 
alleges two reasons why their books were rejected, lest any should 
suppose that the church had rejected them merely on its own autho- 
rity. The first reason is, because they were not such as the church 
in those times believed or approved: where he speaks of the church 
of those times, The second is, because the authors of those books 
did not write with the requisite fidelity, but fallaciously introduced 
into their writings matters which the rule of apostolic faith and 
sound doctrine condemns. But whence could this appear but from 
the books themselves? Bellarmine pretends that there is no dif- 
ference between those gospels and ours, between the epistle to the 
Romans and that to the Laodiceans, save only this, that the church 
hath received one set of gospels and rejected the other; hath 
admitted the epistle to the Romans into the canon, and exploded 
that to the Laodiceans: which is plainly at once impious and absurd 
in the highest degree. 


px] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 533 


The Jesuit’s sixth example is this: We must not only know 
what books form the canon in both Testaments, we must also 
know in particular that these are the very same books; not only 
that the gospel of Mark is true, but that this which we now have 
is the gospel of Mark: now this cannot be proved from the 
scriptures. I answer: It is not simply necessary to salvation that 
we should believe that this book which is inscribed with the name 
of Mark was actually written by him. I say not this rashly, but 
with reason and judgment. It is indeed necessary for me to 
believe it to be true and divine; but every one who doubts whether 
it were written by Mark does not immediately fall from salvation, 
or deserve to be esteemed a heretic. We do indeed think that he 
would deserve blame who should entertain such doubts, because there 
is no reason for them: but nevertheless we do not on that account 
exclude him from life and salvation. The scripture receives not 
authority from men, but from the Holy Ghost: nor is it more 
necessary to believe that this is the gospel of Mark, than to be- 
lieve that the epistle to the Hebrews was written by Paul, or the 
Apocalypse by John. The authors of many books are unknown, 
as of Joshua, Ruth, Chronicles, Esther, &c. But other books 
assert their own authors, as the Pentateuch, which no one doubts 
to have been written by Moses, because it bears his name, so that 
sometimes the whole Pentateuch is called by the name of Moses, 
So the gospel and epistles of John, of Paul, and of Peter: and 
yet the evidence with respect to all these is not precisely the 
same. The papists urge the same objection with respect to the 
Creed, as if it were necessary we should believe that the Creed 
was written by the apostles themselves. For so Lindanus argues, 
Panopl. Lib. ur. e. 8. But if I doubt whether the Creed were 
written by the apostles, am I therefore a heretic? Surely not, if 
I hold and receive the doctrine delivered in the Creed. Augustine, 
de Symbolo, Lib. 1. c. 1, says, that the contents of the Creed are 
scattered through the scriptures, and that the Creed was collected 
out of the scriptures. If this be true, it was not written by all 
the apostles ; for James died before any, and many of the apostles 
before all the books of the new Testament were published. Bel- 
larmine then subjoins some remarks which we have answered in 
the third question. 

In the seventh place, the Jesuit says, that it 1s necessary that 
we should not only read, but understand the scriptures. Now, he 
says, there are many ambiguities in the scriptures which cannot be 


534 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


understood until they are explained by an infallible guide. For 
he says there are two things to be considered in the scriptures, the 
words and the sense, the words being like a sheath, while the 
sense is the sword of the Spirit; and, though the words may be 
understood by every one, yet it is not so with the sense. To this 
purpose he thinks is the saying of Basil, de Spirit. S. c. 27, that 
the gospel * without an interpretation is a mere name!" He 
enumerates many things of this kind, which are obscurely laid 
down in scripture, as the equality of the persons of the Godhead, 
the procession of the Holy Spirit, original sin, Christ's descent 
into hell. These, he says, cannot be deduced from scripture with- 
out great difficulty. I answer: When our adversary confesses 
that, with whatever difficulty, these things may be deduced from 
scripture, he concedes that they are not unwritten verities, or such 
as are to be counted amongst traditions. For the ancient fathers 
teach most truly, that whatever is deduced from scripture, whatever 
difficulty may attend the deduction, is all written. Secondly, I 
say, that the Jesuit differs from other papists in this point. For 
others write in a very different style about these matters, and rank 
them in the number of unwritten traditions. Stapleton, Lib. xm. c. 
5, says that the Homoiision cannot be proved from scripture, nor 
yet the Deity of the Holy Spirit. Nazianzen, de Theolog. Lib. v. 
mentions certain heretics who maintained that the Holy Ghost was 
£évos kai aypados Ocós, “a strange God unknown to scripture.” 
They compare us to these heretics, because we receive nothing but 
what is found in scripture; whereas they themselves much more 
resemble those heretics, denying these things to be written which 
indeed are so, because gathered by necessary inference from the 
scriptures rightly expounded and understood. Cochleus against 
Bullinger affirms the Homoiision to be a tradition, and declares 
that he would find it easier to prove the sacrifice of the mass out 
of the scriptures, than the Homoiision or the Trinity. Yet the 
fathers formerly proved it by the express testimony of scripture: 
for although they could not produce the very terms from scripture, 
yet they found the sense and meaning of the words in scripture. 
Tertullian, in his book against Praxeas, proves by many testimonies 


[1 ef yàp emiyepnoapey ta aypapa trav Odv ws pr peyddrny exovra Thy 
Ovvapuv mapaireicOa, XáÜowiev dv eis abrà rà Kaipia (nutodvTes Td evayyédALor, 
pàXXov 0€ eis Ovoua NyiNóv meptioravtes TO KNpvypa.—T. 11. p. 210. a.] 

[2 mó8ev fiv éemevoayes Éévov Oedv kal dypapov; Orat. xxxviL—T. r. 
p. 593. B.] 


‘Ix. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 535 


of scripture, that God is one in substance and three in persons. So 
Epiphanius, in Heres. 60,3 proves that the Homoiision is in scrip- 
ture, as to the sense, though not as to the term: gore Óé xai 
caos érykeirat €v vou kai Tapa aTOoGTOXOIs kai TOTS m poQ»5- 
tas. So also against the Sabellians. So in the Anchoratus we 
find that the Arians blamed that term because it was not found in 
scripture. But Ambrose, de Fide, c. Arian. c. 4 and 5, proves it 
by many testimonies of scripture; and begins his fifth chapter with 
these words: ** Knowing, therefore, this unity of substance in the 
Father and in the Son, on the authority, not only of the prophets, 
but also of the gospels, how canst thou say that the Homoüsion is 
not found in scripture*?” Then he adds more to the testimonies 
which he had used in the preceding chapter. Augustine, c. Maz- 
imin. Arian. Lib. nr. c. 14, wishes the dispute concerning this 
doctrine to be managed, not by the testimonies of the fathers, or 
by councils, but by scripture itself. The catholics urged the council 
of Nice, wherein that term was approved and sanctioned: the 
Arians that of Rimini, consisting of twice as many bishops, who 
unanimously rejected that term. But Augustine, in the place re- 
ferred to, writes thus: “Neither should I allege the council of 
Nice, nor you that of Rimini, prejudging, as it were, the question. 
I am not bound by the authority of the one, nor you by that of 
the other. By the authority of scripture, a witness not peculiar 
to either of us but common to both, let allegation be compared 
with allegation, cause with cause, reason with reason5." In this 
passage Augustine desires that this article may not be debated and 
defined by the testimonies of the fathers, but of scripture; and 
therefore he appeals from councils to the bible. So in his dispute 
with Paxentius, he says, that although this term be not found in 
scripture, yet it is sanctioned by John and Paul: which is the 
plainest possible refutation of the papists, who pretend that the 
Arians were convicted by tradition rather than by the scriptures. 
For Augustine openly and confidently appeals to the scriptures, and 
all the fathers use arguments from the scriptures. 


[3 He means Heres. 69. $. 70. p. 796. B. T. 1. ed. Petro.] 

(* Cum ergo hane unitatem substantie in Patre et Filio non solum pro- 
phetica sed et evangelica auctoritate cognoscas, quomodo dicis in scripturis 
divinis “Opoovcvoy non inveniri?—Opp. T. Iv. p. 280. Paris. 1603. 

[5 Sed nune nee ego Niceenum, nec tu debes Arimense, tanquam preeju- 
dicaturus proferre concilium. Nec ego hujus auctoritate, nec tu illius deti- 
neris: scripturarum auctoritatibus, non quorumque propriis sed utrisque 
communibus testibus, res cum re, causa cum causa, ratio cum ratione con- 
certet.—T. vi. p. 306.] 


536 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son 
the church hath always most truly held against the later Greeks, 
who affirmed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father only. That 
error was condemned in the council of Lyons, in the time of Inno- 
cent the Fourth. Thomas Aquinas was summoned to that council, 
but he died on the way; and his place was supplied by Bonaven- 
ture, who proved most learnedly from scripture that the Spirit 
proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father. Thomas 
Aquinas also proves this in many places, as in his Questiones 
Disput. Quest. 10, and in prima Secundae, Quest. 36, Art. 2. 
And before Thomas Augustine, in his 99th Tractate upon John, 
affirms the Spirit to proceed from the Son, and proves it out of 
scripture. 

As to the third example, of original sin, it can be proved 
expressly enough from scripture, although indeed the term never 
does occur therein : as, from Rom. v. 12, “As by one man sin 
entered into the world, and death by sin, &c.;” and Psalm li. 7, 
*[ was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." 
Here Bellarmine favours the Pelagians, asserting that it is hard to 
prove original sin from scripture; whereas Augustine, in his books 
against the Pelagians, establishes the point abundantly from scrip- 
tural evidence. 

As to the fourth example, Christ’s descent into hell, I cer- 
tainly do confess that he that shall seek to establish this article, 
as the papists hold it, by scripture, undertakes a difficult task. 
Andradius, Defens. Trident. Concil. Lib. zr, says that it cannot 
be gathered at all from scripture. Bellarmine says that it may, 
but with difficulty. But if it can, with whatever difficulty, be 
deduced from the scriptures alone, then the evangelists and apo- 
stles must have written something about it. Andradius, how- 
ever, honestly confesses that this point cannot be proved by any 
place in scripture; and thence he proves that something is necessary 
which is not delivered in the scriptures. Certain it is, however, 
that some of the papists abuse some passages of scripture in behalf 
of this doctrine, as Psalm xvi. 10, and Acts iL, in which chapter 
Peter recites some words out of that Psalm, and 1 Pet m. 19, * By 
which also he went and preached to the spirits in prison, &c.” Yet 
Andradius plainly denies that it can be inferred from scripture, 
and gives a far different interpretation to the place in Peter. 
However, says Andradius, this point is laid down most plainly in 
the Creed. I answer: Ruffinus, however, affirms that it was not 
laid down in the Roman creeds in his time, yea, that it was then 


1x. ] QUESTION THE SIXTH 537 


wanting even in the creeds of the orientals!; adding, that. nothing 
more is delivered in these words than is implied by the clauses 
immediately preceding, wherein we profess our belief that Christ 
was buried, making the meaning of both articles precisely the 
same. This is at least not unreasonable; which I say, without 
intending to determine any thing for certain upon the subject. 
The Nicene Creed does not exhibit this article. The Athanasian 
does: but this makes rather for us than against us; for Athanasius 
mentions the descent into hell, but not the burial. In the Nicene 
Creed, on the contrary, the burial is mentioned, but not the de- 
scent into hell: which seems to indicate the sameness of the articles. 

Besides, there are almost infinite reasons assigned for this 
descent. The Roman catechism delivers two: the first reason 
is, in order that Christ might deliver the fathers; the second, 
that he might display his power and sway over the lower regions. 
Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromat. 6?, maintains, that Christ and 
the apostles descended in order to preach the Gospel to the con- 
demned souls, and bring the hope of salvation to the philoso- 
phers and others who might believe. Aquinas, in his Sum, part 
irr, q. 52, art. 1, enumerates three reasons why Christ descended 
into hell. The first is, * Because, as it was suitable that he should 
die that he might deliver us from death, so it was suitable that he 
should descend into hell to deliver us from. going down into hell :——" 
as if, forsooth, he who delivered us from eternal death did not so 
perfectly finish his work as to leave us in no danger of such a 
descent.  ** Secondly, because it was suitable that, when the devil 
had been vanquished, he should rescue his captives who were im- 
prisoned in the pit. Thirdly, in order that, as he had shewn his 
power on earth by living and dying, so he might also shew his 
power in hell by visiting and illuminating it." In the exposition 
of the creed he adds a fourth reason: ** That he might perfectly 
triumph over the devil.” Augustine knew nothing of these fine 
reasons, since, Ep. 99, he writes that he had not yet discovered 
what advantage Christ’s descent into hell conferred upon the just 
men of old time. These are his words: * I have not yet discovered 
what benefit Christ conferred upon the righteous who were in the 


{1 Sciendum sane est, quod in eeclesie Romance symbolo non habetur 
additum, descendit ad inferna; sed neque in orientis ecclesiis habetur hic 
sermo. — Expos. Symb. $. 20.] 

[2 Aé0eurav 0€ kdv rH Sevtépo Zrpopnarei, rods droarddovs dkodovdas Ta 
Kupi@ kai tovs €v adou ednyyeAtopevovs.—p. 637. n. Paris. 1629.] 


538 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


bosom of Abraham, when he descended into hell, since I do not 
see that, as to the beatific presence of his divinity, he ever with- 
drew from them." Besides, nothing is certainly defined as to the 
period during which Christ remained in hel. The Roman cate- 
chism afürms that he remained in hell as long as his body lay in 
the sepulehre. So Thomas, in his Sum, part 3, q. 52, Art. 4: “At 
the same time his soul was brought out of hell, and his body from 
the tomb?" If this be true, how did he perform his promise to the 
thief, * To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise?" Unless, 
indeed, they make a paradise in hell The papists indeed place 
paradise upon earth: but it is plain from 2 Cor. xii. 2, 3, 4, that 
that paradise which we deem to be the seat of the happy souls, is 
neither in hell, nor on earth, but in the highest heavens. Besides, 
when the thief besought Christ to remember him when he was in 
his kingdom, he surely never thought of this infernal kingdom. It 
is not, therefore, necessary that we should believe that Christ 
descended in this way into hell; nor can Christ's descent into hell 
in this sense be proved either with ease or with difficulty from 
scripture. 

In the eighth place, the Jesuit objects thus: We must believe 
that the essential parts of all the sacraments were instituted by 
Christ: but no such thing is found in scripture, except with 
respect to two, or three at the most. In the Sartorian edition this 
argument is omitted. I answer: We recognise only two sacra- 
ments, which we maintain to have been instituted by Christ in 
regard of both matter and form: for the whole entire essence of 
these is set forth in the scriptures. As to the other popish sacra- 
ments, it is no wonder that their essence is not explained in 
scripture, because some of them have no matter, some no form, and 
some neither form nor matter. | 

In the ninth place, he frames this objection: It is necessary to 
believe that Mary continued a virgin always. But this is not 
certain from the scriptures: therefore, some necessary things are 
known from some other source besides the scripture. Cochleeus adds 
further, that the title of Ocorókos or Deipara is not grounded 
upon the scriptures: which is a notable calumny; for the fathers 
proved the virgin to be Oeoroxos from the scriptures, against 


[! Unde illis justis qui in sinu Abrahz erant, cum ille in inferna descen- 
deret, nondum quid contulisset inveni, a quibus eum secundum beatificam 
presentiam suze divinitatis nunquam video recessisse. —Ep. 99. al. 164. $. 8.] 

[? Simul anima ejus educta est de inferno, et corpus de sepulchro.] 


Ix. | . QUESTION THE SIXTH. 539 


the Nestorians, namely, from Matt. i. 23, and Luke i. 35, and 
many other places. I answer: As to the perpetual virginity of 
Mary, it is no business of mine to meddle with that dispute. I 
content myself with saying, that the fathers, who managed the 
controversy with Helvidius, adduced not only some obscure tradi- 
tions, which no one would rank very high, but made use also of 
testimonies from scripture. So Proclus Cyzicenus alleges a passage 
from Ezekiel about the gate which should be closed *. So Ambrose, 
Sermon 4 and 5. So also Ambrose, Epist. 31 and 79, proves the 
same from John, where Christ commends his mother to John’s 
care; which he would not have done, if she had a family of chil- 
dren. Epiphanius prosecutes this argument stil more copiously 
against the Antidico-Marianites. Jerome contends against Helvidius 
with many passages of scripture; and in like manner other fathers. 
Therefore, if these fathers determined aright, this opinion is not 
absolutely without scriptural authority. Now, as to the Jesuit’s 
assertion, that it is an article of faith to believe the perpetual 
virginity of the blessed Mary, I say that Basil thought otherwise: 
for, in his Homily on Christ’s nativity, he says that we should not 
curiously dispute upon this subject, but that it is enough to know 
that she had no children before Christ. 

In the tenth place, Bellarmine uses the following objection: 
We must believe under the new Testament that Easter is to be 
celebrated on the Lord’s day, because the Quartadecimans were 
esteemed heretics by the ancient church. But this is by no means 
evident from scripture. I answer, that there was indeed a great 
contention formerly about this matter, but without reason; so that 
it is a wonder how there could have been such great and fierce 
dissension about a thing so slight and of hardly any importance. 
Pope Victor threatened to excommunicate all the eastern churches 
for keeping Easter upon another day than Sunday; but Irenzeus 
and many other very holy bishops blamed Victor on that account, 
as appears from Eusebius, Lib. v. c. 25, The eastern churches said 
that they followed John and Philip; the western, Paul and Peter. 
Sozomen, Lib. vir. c. 19, says, that the controversy was settled by 
Polyearp and Vietor upon the agreement that each should follow 
his own custom and judgment; deeming it “a piece of folly to be 
divided on account of customs,” evyOes eOwv Evexev aXANAWY xept- 
(ecÜai. From whose words we perceive that the observance was 
free, and not necessary as Bellarmine says. Perhaps those apostles 


[3 Ezek. xliv. 2.] 


540 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


in the beginning, in compliance with men’s weakness, observed 
certain days, which afterwards through human error passed into a 
law. If John kept the passover with the Jews, as Paul some- 
times observed circumcision, does it thence follow either that the 
passover is to be celebrated with the Jews, or that any celebration 
of the passover is of perpetual obligation? I answer, therefore, in 
the first place: That there was no reason why such learned fathers 
should have contended so earnestly, or disputed so keenly upon this 
subject. It is no point of necessity to celebrate it upon the Lord’s 
day, or some other day, or upon any day at all. For so Socrates, 
Lib. v. c. 22, says, that the apostles determined nothing about 
festivals: Xkomds pév ovv yéyove Tos avo TOXows Ov Tept npne- 
pov eoptastikey vouoÜereiv: on which point he discourses at 
large, and says, that those fathers contended about this matter to 
no purpose; since the passover was a type and ceremony, and all 
types have now vanished. Secondly, I affirm, that this was in- 
deed a very ancient custom, but still free: for such were the 
terms of the agreement between Victor and the oriental. bishops. 
Thirdly, I say, that the Quartadecimans, that is, those who, in 
imitation of the Jews, used to celebrate Easter upon the fourteenth 
day of the first month, were opposed by scriptural arguments ; 
because Christ rose upon Sunday, and there ought to be a difference 
between the Easter of the Jews, and that of the Christians. 

In the eleventh place, Bellarmine objects that the baptism of 
infants cannot be proved from scripture by the Lutherans and 
Calvinists, though it can by the catholics. But why not by the 
Lutherans and Calvinists? Because the Lutherans say that there 
is need of faith, and that baptism is of no avail without actual 
faith in the individual, with which the scriptures do not teach us 
that children are endowed. I answer, first: That in asserting 
that catholics can prove the baptism of infants from scripture, he 
contradicts himself; for he had said before, that the baptism of 
infants was an unwritten tradition. Bellarmine in his published 
edition uses different language from that of his manuscript Lec- 
tures. For in the book printed at the Sartorian press his words 
are these: ** Now this the catholics do not, and the Lutherans can- 
not, prove out of the scriptures alone.” But in the MS. copy thus: 
“This though the catholics can prove out of scripture, yet the 
Lutherans cannot.” Thus he concedes that infant baptism may be 
proved from scripture, although not from it alone. Secondly, the 
Lutherans alone are concerned with the question about the faith of 


Ix. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 541 


infants. However, I do not think that they say that baptism is of 
no avail if infants have not actual faith; but that it is possible 
that infants may have faith, although it be not apparent to us. 
But let the Lutherans answer for themselves upon this point. It 
is enough for us that Bellarmine himself concedes the possibility 
of proving infant baptism from scripture. 

In the twelfth place, Bellarmine objects something about pur- 
gatory. Luther, says he, believed in the existence of purgatory, 
as is manifest from his assertions, Art. 17. But he himself affirms 
that it cannot be proved from scripture: therefore we should hold 
something which is not contained in scripture. I answer: I confess 
that Luther used such expressions, and professed belief in purga- 
tory. But what sort of belief? I believe it, says he, not as 
certain, but as probable. Besides, he says in the same place, that 
he believes the existence of purgatory in the same way as he be- 
leves Thomas Aquinas to be a saint: which I do not think that 
he believed very earnestly. Furthermore, he wrote that book at 
an early period, when he first began to take pen in hand against 
the papists; afterwards he changed his opinion, and determined 
otherwise about purgatory. 

Bellarmine thinks himself very acute in his thirteenth objection, 
sup posing that he hath caught us in our own toils. It is this: We 
say that nothing is necessary to be believed which is not contained 
in scripture. He retorts this upon us, and asks us where we find 
this written. I answer, in the first place: We do not say that 
there is no unwritten word of God, but acknowledge that Christ 
and his apostles said many things which are not contained in scrip- 
ture. Our opinion is this; that not every particular of all kinds, 
but that all the general kinds of particulars, that is to say, all the 
principal heads of doctrine, are in scripture. We say, that what- 
ever cannot be unknown without making shipwreck of faith and 
salvation, is fully found and explained in the scriptures. Secondly, 
this word also is written, that all necessary dogmas may be drawn 
from scripture; as we shall prove hereafter. Thirdly, as to his 
assertion, that the word mentioned by Moses, Deut. iv. 2, (where 
he says, “ Ye shall not add to this word which I speak unto you, 
neither shall ye diminish from it,”) is not written, it may be plainly 
refuted from verses 8 and 9, where Moses says this word is the 
whole law, and commands parents to teach it to their children. 
Now all parents could not know the unwritten law, which we sup- 
pose to have been of a mysterious character, and concealed from the 


542 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ CH. 


people. Besides, he divides this law into the ceremonial, judicial, 
and moral: therefore he speaks of the written law, as we will shew 
more clearly hereafter. 





CHAPTER X. 


THE ARGUMENTS TAKEN FROM SCRIPTURE, WHEREBY BELLARMINE 
PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF SOME TRUE TRADITIONS, ARE 
ANSWERED. 


Ir follows now that (to use his own language) he should prove 
de facto the existence of some true traditions. His riRsT argument 
is taken from what hath been already said and argued. If scripture 
do not contain all necessary things, then there is-some unwritten 
word: otherwise God would not have well provided for his church, 
if anything necessary were wanting. I answer: That God hath 
excellently well and wisely provided for his church by delivering to 
it the scriptures, which contain in themselves a full and perfect body 
of doctrine sufficient for every man’s salvation. For the things 
alleged are either contained in scripture, or are not necessary. 

The sEconp argument is taken from the authority of scripture, 
out of which he quotes many testimonies. The first place is John 
xvi. 12, where Christ says to his disciples: “I have yet many 
things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." From which 
place the Jesuit concludes that there are many unwritten traditions, 
because the Lord said many things which are not written. 

I have four replies to this. Firstly, these many things of which 
Christ here speaks were no other than what he had previously 
taught his apostles, and which required to be repeated and explained, 
because the apostles then in consequence of the dulness of their 
minds found some difficulty in understanding them. On that ac- 
count Christ (John xiv. 26) had promised to them the Holy Spirit, 
who should bring all things to their remembrance: now what were 
these “all things?” Were they anything more than he had pre- 
viously taught them? By no means; but precisely the same as 
he had before said to them. The Spirit was to enable them to 
recollect what they had heard, to suggest to them, and to recall to 
memory what they had forgotten, to explain to them what they had 
not understood: &ióa£e: zravra kat vropryyce vas vrávra à eizov 
vpiv. Therefore the Holy Spirit suggested nothing more than Christ 


x.] | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 543 


had spoken. We have a clear example of this in John ii. 22. 
Christ had said that he could in three days restore and rebuild the 
temple, if it were destroyed. The disciples did not understand these 
words at the time when they were spoken; but after his resurrection 
the evangelist says that they understood that he spake not of the 
temple reared by human hands, but of his own body. Jansenius, a 
popish author, commenting upon these words, “I have yet many 
things to say unto you," John xvi 12, affirms that these “ many 
things” are not “different from what he had previously taught 
them,” but only a clearer “explication” of them; and to this he 
appositely applies 1 Cor. ii. 1, “I could not speak unto you as 
unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.” 
Indeed Christ in that discourse, which is contained in John xv., testi- 
fies that he had delivered all things to his disciples, when he says: 
* All things, which I have heard of my Father, I have made known 
unto you." Christ had declared all things: he had, therefore, re- 
served nothing, nor had the Holy Spirit any more or any different 
instructions to give the disciples than those truths which Christ had 
heard from his Father and had announced to them: but these 
things required to be repeated again and again, on account of the 
ignorance and slowness and sorrow wherewith their minds were at 
that time oppressed and encumbered. 

Secondly, they cannot deny that the Holy Spirit taught the 
apostles these many things, and indeed all things, and that they 
delivered them to the churches, committing them, besides, to books 
and written documents, lest they should be consigned to oblivion ; 
upon which topic we shall speak more at large hereafter. But 
what sort of an argument is this which the papists construct in 
this fashion,—I have many things to say unto you which I will not 
say, because ye are not capable of understanding them; therefore, 
all things are not written? Who does not perceive that there is 
absolutely no conclusiveness in this reasoning ? Where is the middle 
term? What the tie by which these two things are bound to- 
gether into coherence? Surely it is a palpable instance of the 
fallacy ignoratio elenchi. For Christ does not say, Ye shall not 
write all, or, ye shall not know all; but, I will not now say what 
I have to say, because you cannot now bear so many things. 
Does it therefore follow, that they afterwards did not know or 
did not write them all? By no means. 

Thirdly, How do the papists infer that these things which 
Christ reserved are their traditions? Christ reserved many things ; 
therefore he reserved what they hold. It is a mere fallacy of the 


544 | THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


consequent. But in order to see that these were not the popish 
traditions, let us consider the nature of these latter. Are they so 
abstruse or so sublime, so difficult or so important, so arduous or 
so divine,—are they pregnant with such deep and recondite mean- 
ing, as to meet the conditions of the context? Nay, they are so 
easy, so almost futile and childish, as not only to be level to the 
capacity of the apostles when still imperfectly instructed, but such 
as almost any one may understand without an effort. Doubtless, 
therefore, Christ was not thinking of them in this place. They are 
all mere trifles, such as any the most dull and stupid is capable of 
mastering. The most mysterious parts of the popish traditions are 
those which pertain to the sacraments, the sacrifice of the mass, its 
rites, ceremonies, gesticulations, and so forth. Yet these are of such 
a nature that they may be easily learned and understood by any 
ignorant priest, yea, by a boy. Are these the things which ex- 
ceeded the reach and perception of the apostles? or were they 
traditions about fasting, or about Lent, or feasts, or prayers? All 
these are of such a character as to be intelligible to even the most 
stupid of mankind. Therefore these are not the “many things” 
which Christ reserved, but some greater things than these, which, 
although they had often heard them, and although they were extant 
in the scriptures, could not be understood without the assistance of 
the Holy Spirit. 

Fourthly, the papists, when they draw such an argument from 
this place, plainly imitate the ancient heretics. So Augustine tells 
us, Tractat. 97, in Joan., that all the heretics abused these words 
of Christ to persuade the people that their figments were those 
things which Christ reserved. ‘All the most foolish heretics, 
who would have themselves called Christians, endeavour to colour 
their daring figments by the occasion of this passage in the gos- 
pel, where the Lord says, ‘I have yet many things to say unto 
you.!" This is no slight blow the learned father deals to the 
papists of our time; whom, in 7'actat. 96, he answers thus: 
“Since Christ was silent, who of us will say they were these 
or those things? or, if he venture to say it, how can he prove it ?” 
Then he subjoins: * Who is there so vain or rash, as that even 
when he hath said what is true, what he pleases, and to whom he 
pleases, without any divine testimony, will affirm that these are 


[! Omnes autem insipientissimi hzretici, qui se Christianos vocari volunt, 
audacias figmentorum suorum...hac occasione evangelicz sententize colorare 
conantur, ubi Dominus ait, Adhue multa habeo vobis dicere. —T. Iv. p. 975. 
Bassan. 1797.] 


| x1 QUESTION THE SIXTH. 545 


the things which the Lord was unwilling to say? Who of us can 
do this, destitute of the extraordinary authority of a prophet or an 
apostle, without incurring the severest blame for his temerity ??" 
Where Augustine plainly condemns the papists as guilty of heretical 
rashness and audacity. Then he says, a little after, ** But what 
those things were which he himself did not tell, it is rash to wish 
presumptuously to say." And again, almost at the commence- 
ment: * Who of us would now venture to say that he was now able 
to tell what they then were not able to bear? On this account 
you must not expect that I should tell them to you." Augustine 
affirms himself to be utterly ignorant what things these were; but 
the papists of our time boast that they know all these things, and 
are quite well able to understand them. Augustine bestows three 
entire discourses upon these words, wherein he teaches us these 
three points: First, that all the heretics were wont to abuse these 
words to the support of their figments; secondly, that we should 
not curiously inquire what those things were which Christ did not 
tell; thirdly, he thinks them greater and more mysterious than 
the human mind, even when illuminated by the Holy Spirit, can 
comprehend or understand, such as secrets of predestination, the 
number of the elect, the joys of the kingdom of heaven; in which 
third point he was in error. However, the papists must make 
good two things in order to prove that this place lends them any 
help: first, that those things which Christ then reserved are 
now also still unwritten ; the cther, that they are the same they 
boast of, and place amongst their traditions. But these things 
they will never be able to prove. 

The second place of scripture cited by the Jesuit is contained in 
the last chapter of John, in the closing words, where the evangelist 
writes thus: ‘There are also many other things which Jesus did, 
the which if they should be written one by one, I suppose that even 
the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." 
Therefore, says Bellarmine, there are many things unwritten, since 
even a single hand can contain all the books that have been written. 
I answer, that there are many errors in this argument. Firstly, 
John does not there speak of Christ's doctrine, but of his acts, that 


[2 Quis est tam vanus aut temerarius, qui cum dixerit etiam vera, quibus 
voluerit, quee voluerit, sine ullo testimonio divino, affirmet ea esse que tum 
Dominus dicere noluit? Quis hoc nostrum faciet, et non maximam culpam 
temeritatis incurrat, in quo nec prophetica nec apostoliea excellit auctoritas ? 
—Opp. T. rv. p. 970.] 


35 


[ WHITAKER. | 


546 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cu. 


is, of his signs and miracles. For he says, “which Jesus did,” 
0ca erotnoev, not, “which he said.” This place is therefore irrelevant 
to the question before us. For we do not say that all the miracles 
of Christ were committed to writing, since they were too many and 
great to be contained in any books: but we affirm that the whole 
doctrine of Christ, so far as it is necessary to our salvation, is 
written in these books. To this effect is what we read in John xx. 
30, where the evangelist writes thus: ** And many other signs did 
Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this 
book.” Thus it is manifest, that the evangelist speaks of his signs 
and miracles, not of his doctrine. Is, then, anything wanting, 
because his miracles are not all written? By no means: for all 
Christ’s miracles had this scope, to prove the divinity of the Son, 
to seal his doctrine, and finally, to shed a lustre round his person. 
Now this “ those miracles” which are related in scripture do most 
evidently ; nor could these things be more firmly established, even 
if all Christ’s miracles were described in writing. The learned, 
however, recognise a certain familiar hyperbole in these words of 
John, such as frequently occurs in scripture; as when we read that 
gold and silver were as plentiful as stones and earth, that the walls 
of a city reached as high as heaven, that the Israelites were like 
grasshoppers in the sight of the Canaanites. John here obviates 
a scruple which some, who prosecuted their inquiries with a greater 
desire to gratify their curiosity than any prudent care for edifica- 
tion, might raise: did Christ live so long, and yet do nothing more 
than these things which are related by the evangelists? John 
answers, that he did many other things, which are not written. 
Yea, even all the words of Christ are not related one by one seve- 
rally, but only in general. The second error is no less glaring. 
All things are not written: therefore, all necessary things are not 
written. The argument is inconsequential. We confess that all 
things are not written, but yet contend that all necessary things 
are written. In John xx. 30, 31, * Many other signs,” says the 
evangelist, ** did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are 
not written in this book; but these things are written that ye 
might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that 
believing ye might have life through his name." John therefore 
confesses that many other miracles were exhibited by Christ, and 
that they are not written; and yet says, that these things which are 
written are sufficient for faith and salvation; for that all who be- 
lieve these will obtain eternal salvation. The fathers understood 


x.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 541 


these words to mean thus, that all necessary things may be derived 
from the scriptures. Augustine, Tract. 49 in Joann., writes thus 
upon this subject: * Though the Lord Jesus did many things, yet 
all are not written (as this same holy evangelist testifies, that the 
Lord Jesus said and did many things which are not written); but 
those things were chosen to be committed to writing, which seemed 
sufficient for the salvation of believers!" Therefore, those things 
which are written suffice for the salvation of believers. Cyril, Lib. 
xit in Joan. cap. ult, writes thus: ** All those things which the 
Lord did are not written, but so much as the writers thought suffi- 
cient both for faith and manners; that, clothed with the glory of an 
orthodox faith and a virtuous life, we might reach the kingdom of 
heaven?" Nothing could be written more plainly. Many things 
were omitted, but nothing that was necessary. Therefore the 
" evangelists and apostles wrote all those things which they thought 
sufficient either for manners or for doctrine. The third error in 
this reasoning is the most absurd. The evangelist says that the 
things unwritten are innumerable; therefore, if he mean the tra- 
ditions of the papists, they must be infinite, so as that not even 
the whole world could contain them. They must, therefore, either 
confess their traditions to be infinite, and incapable of being enu- 
merated by themselves, or else concede that this place does not 
refer to them. 

The third passage of scripture cited by the Jesuit is from the 
beginning of Acts i, where Luke writes that Christ conversed with 
his disciples during forty days after his resurrection, and said 
many things to them, and taught them many things concerning 
the kingdom of heaven. Then, doubtless, says Bellarmine, Christ 
told his disciples what he would not tell them before; as, for 
instance, concerning the sacrifice of the mass, the institution of the 
sacraments, the ordination of ministers, &c. &c., which they 
delivered to the church. I answer: I readily confess that the 
apostles did deliver, with the utmost fidelity, to the church what 
they had received from Christ. But I can perceive no consequen- 


{1 Cum multa fecisset Dominus Jesus, non omnia scripta sunt, (sicut idem ~ 
ipse sanctus evangelista testatur, multa Dominum Christum et dixisse et 
fecisse quee scripta non sunt;) electa sunt autem que scriberentur, que saluti 
credentium sufficere videbantur.—T. Iv. p. 819.] 

[? Non igitur omnia que Dominus fecit conscripta sunt, sed que scri- 
bentes tam ad mores quam ad dogmata putarunt sufficere; ut recta fide et 
operibus ac virtute rutilantes ad regnum colorum perveniamus.—Cyril. Opp. 
col. 220. Paris. 1508.] 


35—2 


548 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. TCH. 


tial force in this argument. For how will he prove the very 
thing which he makes the basis of his reasoning,—that it was his 
traditions which Christ taught at that time? He says that this is 
undoubtedly true. But we cannot take his assertion for an argu- 
ment: we want reasons, not asseverations. Now where is the 
consequence in this reasoning ? Christ, after his resurrection, often 
conversed with his disciples, (not indeed conversing with them con- 
stantly, but at intervals; for so Cicumenius; he had not, says 
that author, cuvey7 óiarpi(9ijv with them, but cuectadpevws; and 
it is plain from John xx. 26, that he was for eight days together 
absent from the disciples,) and spake unto them many things 
concerning the kingdom of God: therefore, he delivered to them 
those things which are not written. I confess that Christ said many 
things about the kingdom, but of the popish traditions not a word. 
We shall much better understand what it was he said, by consult- 
ing the scriptures, so that we have no ground for inventing any 
unwritten verities, From Matt. xxviii, Mark xvi, John xx. and 
xxi, Luke xxiv., and Acts i, we may gather the nature of his 
discourses. He expounded to them the scriptures; he gave them 
authority to cast out devils, to retain and remit sins; he attested 
his resurrection to them; he bade them preach the gospel to all 
nations, and said other things of the same kind, which we can 
read in scripture, so that we have no need of such conjectures as 
the papists rely upon in this question. 

The second testimony of scripture cited by the Jesuit is taken 
from certain words of the apostle, in 1 Cor. xi., where Paul handles 
two questions,—one concerning the manner of prayer, the other 
concerning the mode of receiving the eucharist. He commences 
(says Bellarmine) both from tradition. The first thus: “I praise 
you, brethren, that ye remember all my instructions.” Now these, 
says he, are not written; and to prove it he alleges Chrysos- 
tom, Theophylact, Epiphanius, and says that other fathers also 
might be alleged. Therefore, there actually are some unwritten 
traditions, I answer: It may be conceded that these things are 
nowhere written in scripture; and yet nothing can be gathered 
thence to the prejudice of the defence of our cause. For if the 
apostle speak of free institutions and indifferent ceremonies, which 
belong not to the class of necessary things, he touches not upon 
our subject, nor censures the position which we maintain. For we 
do not say that all indifferent ceremonies are expressly delivered 
in scripture (as how men ought to deport themselves in the congre- 


x. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 549 


gation, and the like), which, we are well assured are various and 
mutable, according to the change of times and persons. We 
contend not, I say, about indifferent ceremonies, which appertain 
merely to external polity and order, but about necessary doctrine. 
This is perpetual; those are not perpetual, but suited to the times. 
But let us grant that necessary doctrine is here denoted by the 
term ‘tradition ; and indeed, for my own part, I think that the 
whole teaching delivered by the apostle is meant, because he says, 
éTt avra pov péuvyoOe, and afterwards embraces the eucharist 
under the term ‘tradition :’ thus he speaks of the whole sum of his 
teaching, wherein some things were necessary and perpetual, some 
things left free, which (specifically, though not generally) might 
be altered and changed. For, in general, all things must always 
be referred to the ends of decency and edification. What then 
follows from all this? We confess that the whole doctrine of the 
apostle was not then written, when that epistle to the Corinthians 
was written: does it follow from this that it is not even now 
written? Surely, by no force of this place or argument. We 
allow, indeed, that all things were not written immediately ; but 
we say that afterwards, when all the sacred books were published, 
all things were abundantly contained in them. If, then, this place 
be understood of doctrine, we say that it is now fully written, 
although it was not so then; if of indifferent ceremonies, it is still 
farther from touching us. For these may be changed, provided 
only the reason and end be preserved; nor are they necessary, as is 
plain from the place before us. For the apostle speaks of that 
modesty which women ought to observe in the congregation, and 
of that decency also which is required in men when they frequent 
religious meetings and assemblies. He desires men to pray with 
uncovered, women with covered heads: which injunctions are not 
of a perpetual obligation; for they are not now observed even by 
the papists themselves; so as to make it plain that all churches are 
not bound to the same ceremonies. 

But, says Bellarmine, the apostle commences the second ques- 
tion also, which concerns the manner of receiving the eucharist, 
from the topie of tradition, thus: *I delivered unto you that 
which I also received of the Lord." So that in these words he 
praises them for holding tradition. I answer: Does it, therefore, 
follow that something unwritten is necessary ? By no means. For 
immediately after the apostle tells us what that was which he had 
received of the Lord, and had delivered to the Corinthians, “that 


550 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ou. 


the Lord Jesus Christ in the same night," &c., which not only he 
writes in this place, but three evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and 
Luke, have also written. This, therefore, which Paul delivered is 
assuredly not unwritten. But there is another place in that 
chapter, which the Jesuit presses very earnestly: ‘“ The rest will I 
set in order when I come.” ‘ What it was he settled, says he, is 
nowhere found written. Catholics justly think, that he not only 
settled rites and ceremonies, but also delivered matters of greater 
importance, such as concerning the ordination of the clergy, the 
sacrifice of the altar, the matter and form of the other sacraments ; 
nor can the heretics shew the contrary. I answer, in the first 
place, that the apostle speaks of comparatively slight matters, 
namely, of some outward rites and ceremonies appertaining to 
order and decency, as is indicated by the word Stara£oua. 
Chrysostom seems to give no bad explanation of these words: he 
supposes, that by this term either some clearer explanation of what 
was written is denoted, or some matters of slight moment and 
importance which did not require to be pressed. Thus Chrysostom 
understands ra ord, “the rest,” to mean either the clearer 
elucidation of these same things, or else some other matters, which 
were of no necessity and no great weight. But the papists think 
their greatest articles, the sacrifice of the altar, the form and 
matter of many sacraments, and other very important things of the 
same kind, are here denoted. But secondly, let us grant that they 
were necessary things which the apostle promises that he would 
set in order when he came. Are they nowhere written? And 
if they be not written in this epistle, are they therefore 
nowhere to be found in other passages of scripture? Thirdly, if 
they be written neither here nor elsewhere, does it follow that 
they were those things which they count amongst their traditions ? 
Our adversaries (says Bellarmine) cannot in any way shew the 
contrary : but it would have been more reasonable if he had shewn 
what he maintains. .And yet I think it quite possible to shew 
what he thinks impossible to be shewn. I profess myself able to 
shew it, not by uncertain suspicions, but by the clear testimony of 
scripture. For if those things be here understood which the 
papists rate so high,—the sacrifice of the altar, the ordination of the 
clergy, institution, and such like, then some necessary things were 
not delivered to the Corinthians when this epistle was written. 
For the papists say that these articles of theirs are necessary in 
the highest degree. Now all necessary things had been abundantly 


xd QUESTION THE SIXTH. 551 


delivered by the apostle to the Corinthians, before he sent this 
epistle to them, as is plain from 1 Cor.i. 5, where he says that 
they were enriched “in everything," év cavri Noyw kai racy 
ryvwoet : and from chap. xv. 1, 2, where he writes, “I declare 
unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which 
also ye received, and wherein ye stand, by which also ye are 
saved if ye continue therein, &c." Whence it is plain that the 
apostle had before this delivered to them the whole complete body 
of christian doctrine. The papists must, therefore, either deny 
that their traditions are necessary ; or must say, in spite of Paul's 
most express assertion, that all necessary things were not delivered 
to the Corinthians. Although therefore it is preposterous and 
unjust in Bellarmine to require us to prove any thing here, when 
he himself cannot do it, and though it is a violation of the laws of 
disputation; yet we have complied with his wishes, and have plainly 
proved the contrary. Thus we see the papists have no grounds 
for “ justly thinking" that it is their traditions which the apostle 
here tacitly implies. But mark, upon what a noble foundation 
rest the popish dogmas, and those not the shghter ones, but the 
most weighty of all, the sacrifice of the altar, the form and matter 
of the sacraments ;—forsooth upon that here touched by Bellar- 
mine in the words, * The Catholics justly think.” This is to 
suspect, to guess, to wish; not to believe, to prove, to argue. 
Teach, shew, demonstrate to me, that these things were instituted 
by Paul.—You cannot do it, and you own you cannot do it. 

The Jesuit’s third testimony is taken from 2 Thess. ii. 15, 
where the apostle says, dpa ovr, aóeA doi, ov1jkere: “ Therefore, 
brethren, stand fast," hold firm, keep your ground, kai xpatetre 
Tas mapadoces, “and hold the traditions which ye have been 
taught, whether by our word or epistle.” From these words, say 
our adversaries, it is plain that all things are not written: and 
indeed the papists find no more plausible passage than this in 
scripture. reply: Various answers are given to this testimony. 
Some suppose that Paul speaks only of certain external rites and 
ceremonies of no great moment: but the scope of the epistle and 
the context refutes that opinion. For Paul, having mentioned the 
horrible devastation which was to be occasioned by the coming of 
antichrist, immediately subjoins, * Stand fast, and hold the tradi- 
tions, &c.” Therefore his doctrine is rather to be understood as 
designated by the term ‘traditions.’ The apostle Paul had founded 
the church of the Thessalonians, and had both taught them orally, 


552 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


and written an epistle to them. Now, therefore, he exhorts them 
to hold fast his whole teaching, as well what he had when present 
delivered by word of mouth, as what he had committed to writing. 
So that some things were delivered in discourse orally, and others 
written in an epistle. Does not then this plaee establish tradi- 
tions? Nay, our writers have returned a twofold answer to this 
testimony. First, that the things which Paul delivered orally 
were not different from, but absolutely the same with, those which 
were written. Those who adopt this answer explain the passage 
thus: Hold the traditions which ye have been taught, both orally 
and by our epistle. But the Jesuit opposes two arguments to 
this answer. First, he says that the apostle uses a disjunctive 
particle, etre, thereby indicating that the things which he had de- 
livered, and those which he had written, were not the same, but 
different. I answer, that the particle e£re hath not always a dis- 
junctive, but sometimes a conjunctive force, as 1 Cor. xiii. 8: efve 
dé Tpognrevat KaTapynOnoovrat’ etre yAwooat, TavoovTat’ etre 
yao, katapynOncera, which words are to be thus rendered: 
‘ Both prophecies shall fail, and tongues shall cease, and knowledge 
shall fail:” and of a similar kind are other instances in scripture; 
so that nothing can be necessarily gathered from the force of the 
particle. But the Jesuit brings forward another objection, namely, 
that then the former epistle must needs contain all necessary doc- 
trine, which, says he, it does not, nay, not the hundredth part of 
necessary doctrine, as is manifest. I answer: I acknowledge the 
justice of this reasoning. I confess both that the former epistle 
does not contain the whole doctrine of the gospel and all things 
necessary to salvation, and that many other things beside are re- 
quisite; as also that the matters delivered orally were different 
from those which Paul wrote. This answer, therefore, on our 
side, is invalid, and not sufficiently clear, although many learned 
men of our party acquiesce in it. We must, consequently, seek 
another reply. I answer, then: That the canon of the new Tes- 
tament was not yet published and settled, when Paul wrote this 
epistle to the Thessalonians; yea, I maintain, that no books of the 
new Testament were then written, excepting only the gospel of 
Matthew ; and, if we believe Irenzus!, these two epistles to the 
Thessalonians were more ancient even than the gospel of Matthew: 


[! *O pev 07 MarOaios . .. . ypadny eEnveyxey evayyeNiov, roU Ilérpov kai Tov 
Ilavhov év Pépyn eiayyeMogévov kai OegeMwoovrov T)v ékkAnolay.—Lib. III. 
6, 1.] 


A QUESTION THE SIXTH. 553 


for he says that Matthew wrote his gospel whilst Paul and Peter 
were preaching the gospel and founding the church at Rome, 
which was more than twenty years after Christ's ascension. Now 
this epistle was written seventeen or eighteen years after Christ's 
ascension, whilst Paul was teaching at Athens. It is therefore in- 
consequential reasoning to say: When Paul wrote to the Thessa- 
lonians, all necessary things were not written; therefore not after- 
wards: or, The Thessalonians had not then received the doctrine 
complete, as being without the other books of the scriptures of the 
new Testament; therefore we, who have all the books, have not 
the doctrine entire: or, Paul did not write all necessary things in 
this epistle; therefore neither did all the others. Paul in this 
place mentions both traditive and written teaching, and that justly 
considering the time: but we have now more books than those 
Thessalonians had; and therefore it does not follow that all ne- 
cessary things are not found in the canon as now published. The 
Jesuit makes two assaults upon this most reasonable reply of ours. 

First, he says that something was proposed by Paul to the 
Thessalonians, as namely, the time of antichrist's coming, which is 
not contained in the rest of scripture. He proves this from 
2 Thess. ii. 5; and he confirms it out of Augustine, de Civit. Dei, 
Lib. xx. e. 19,? where he endeavours to make that father say that, 
although the Thessalonians knew this, yet we do not, as having 
never heard the apostle. I answer: That he abuses the words 
both of scripture, and of Augustne. For, if the apostle had 
taught the Thessalonians what day or what year antichrist would 
come, which is what he maintains, they would not have expected 
Christ's second advent to judgment to take place suddenly and 
soon, as it is apparent from this second chapter that they did. 
And although Paul may have said something to them about the 
coming of antichrist, yet it does not follow that he had described 
or predicted any thing of the particular time when he was to come. 
So that those words, in the fifth verse, * Remember ye not that 
when I was with you I told you these things?”—must be understood 
of the whole preceding series and chain of subjects (namely, that an- 
tichrist should be revealed, that he should sit in the temple of God, 


[? Et nune quid detineat scitis, id est, quid sit in mora, que causa sit 
dilationis ejus, ut reveletur in suo tempore, scitis: quoniam scire illos dixit, 
aperte hoe dicere noluit. Et ideo nos, qui nescimus quod illi sciebant, 
pervenire cum labore ad id quod sensit apostolus cupimus, nec valemus.— 
p. 689. Basil. 1511.] 


554 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


that he should exalt himself above all that is called God, &c.), not 
of any certain or precise date of his coming, which the apostle had 
never assigned. But be it so, let it be true, that Paul delivered 
to the Thessalonians some certain day, month or year, when the 
coming of antichrist was to take place: it will then follow that 
this is a tradition. Now if it be a tradition, then the papists are 
able to shew the time when antichrist shall come, since they say 
that they possess all the apostolical traditions. But this they 
cannot do: yea, they deny that any one can do it. As to Augus- 
tine, Bellarmine abuses his words also most disgracefully. For 
Augustine does not say that the Thessalonians knew the time when 
antichrist was to come; but he says that they knew what it was 
that delayed his coming, which we are ignorant of: upon which 
point we raise no question. For whether the impediment delaying 
the coming of antichrist at that time were the circumstance of the 
Roman empire being still safe and entire, or the gospel being not 
yet preached in the whole world, we may be entirely ignorant of 
it without injury to our faith. Augustine therefore says nothing 
against our defence. 

The Jesuit answers, in the second place, that, even es it 
were conceded that all is written in other books, yet this would be 
no objeetion to believing in traditions also. For (says he) the 
apostle does not say, I promise that I or the other apostles will 
commit all the rest to writing, but, * hold the traditions." I an- 
swer: Although Paul had never written or made such a promise, 
does it follow that all the rest were not written by other apostles ? 
By no means. For they wrote according as they were commanded 
by the Holy Ghost. We confess that many things are found in 
other seriptures, which were not then committed to writing, con- 
cerning the birth, death, resurrection, future advent of Christ, and 
the whole mystery of our redemption by him accomplished. These 
things the apostle enjoins to be held no less than any of those 

whieh he had himself written, because no less necessary in them- 
selves. How does he prove to us that, if these had been then fully, 
yea, abundantly set forth in writing, the apostle would have made 
any mention of traditions? But it was because he knew that 
these things had not yet been written, that he admonished the 
Thessalonians to hold fast the traditions. However, since he can- 
not prove what he desires from scripture, he brings in the fathers, 
Basil, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others, to whose testimony we 
will give a satisfactory answer by and by. Meanwhile to these 


x.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 555 


fathers we oppose Ambrose’s commentary upon these words, who 
says, that by tradition in this place is meant the evangelical doc- 
trine or tradition of the gospel!, which is abundantly explained in 
the scriptures. 

Although what we have already said is sufficient to explain 
this passage, yet, in order to make our reply firmer and fuller, 
we will subjoin three observations. First, we bid them prove the 
force of this argument: “Some things are not written: therefore 
these are the very points which they boast of and obtrude upon 
us.” This they can never prove; and yet they must demonstrate 
this before they can establish their position. Secondly, if from this 
mode of speaking (^ Hold fast the traditions which ye have been 
taught, whether by our word or epistle") it follows that some neces- 
sary things are not written, then from the same form of speech 
it will also follow that some necessary things were not orally de- 
livered: whereas they will have it that all necessary truths are 
contained in tradition. Now let them choose which they please. 
Thirdly, I inquire to whom the apostle delivered those things which 
they maintain not to have been written? Certainly, if they wish 
to be consistent with themselves, they must needs reply that they 
were not delivered to all, but only to certain persons; namely, to 
the wise and perfect. For so Canus, Lib. mr. c. 3, Fundament. 4, 
proves from Hilary and Origen, that Moses did not write the more 
secret exposition of his law, but delivered it orally to his servant 
Joshua: and thence he infers that the apostles also acted in the 
same way, and committed their more secret doctrines only to a few 
wise persons. Dut itis manifest that those things which the apostle 
here mentions were delivered to all the Thessalonians: for the 
apostle addresses them all, when he says, * Keep the traditions ;” 
so as to make it impossible for us to understand in this place cer- 
tain secret traditions delivered only to a few persons. From this 
it is plain that this place does not, as Bellarmine affirms, remain in 
its strength. We have already examined three testimonies of 
scripture which the Jesuit considers the strongholds of his cause. 
Now follows the fourth. 

The Jesuit's fourth testimony is derived from certain injunc- 
tons given by Paul to his disciple Timothy. He proposes three 
injunctions; the first of which is contained in 1 Tim. vi. 20, 
* Keep that which is committed unto thee," or the deposit. Under 
the name deposit (says Bellarmine) is denoted not the scripture, 


[! In traditione evangelii standum . . . monet.— Opp. T. rr. p. 567. Paris. 
1603.] 


556 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


but a treasury of unwritten doctrine, as some of the fathers have 
explained it: therefore, there are some unwritten traditions. I 
answer: If I chose to go through all the various interpretations of 
this place, I might easily stop the adversary's mouth. Cardinal 
Cajetan, a man of undoubted learning, would have us understand 
by this “deposit” the flock committed to Timothy, which Paul com- 
mands him to keep diligently. "Which exposition overturns the 
Jesuit’s argument. But I do not think that that interpretation 
suits the passage, and therefore will not use it. Let it be, then, 
that it denotes, as he desires, a treasure of sound and catholic doc- 
trine: what will follow from that? Does it follow that all necessary 
doctrine is not written? How can Bellarmine join together things 
so distant as such a conclusion and such premises? I, for my part, 
do not think that the scripture is meant by the term “ deposit,” nor 
does any of our divines so explain the passage; but we understand 
by “the deposit” the sound and catholic doctrine itself. Now, then, 
such an argument as the following is inconsequential: Paul exhorts 
Timothy to preserve sound doctrine ; therefore, it cannot be wholly 
derived from the scriptures. If I were to advise a person to keep 
fast the catholic faith, and beware of popish errors, would he imme- 
diately suppose that that faith could not be derived from scripture ? 
Nothing less. But, says Bellarmine, if scripture be meant by * the 
deposit” (which none of our divines assert), it is much better kept 
in libraries and papers. From which answer we may see the pro- 
fane temper of the Jesuit. Is scripture then indeed better kept in 
libraries than in the hearts of men? It is thus, forsooth, that 
they are wont to keep the scriptures, not in their minds, but in 
their chests. Paul, however, is not speaking of the external custody 
of books, but of that internal keeping, when the scripture is laid 
up in the hearts of the faithful. Here he cites certain fathers, to 
whom I will only oppose Tertullian! He, in his Prescriptions 
against heretics, desires us to understand by the term “ deposit," in 
this place, no remote or secret doctrine, but that which was written 
* above and below” by the apostle: so that, if we believe Tertul- 
lian, no other doctrine is here meant but that which is delivered by 


[1 Quod hoc depositum est?. ...an illius denuntiationis, de quo ait, Hanc 
denuntiationem commendo apud te, filiole Timothee ; item illius preecepti, de 
quo ait, Denuntio tibi ante Deum, &e..... Quod autem preeceptum, et qus 
denuntiatio? Ex supra et infra scriptis intelligere erat, non nescio quid sub- 
ostendi hoe dicto de remotiore doctrina, sed potius inculcari de non admit- 
tenda alia preter eam quam audierat ab ipso, et puto, coram multis, inquit, 
testibus. —c. 25. | 


x.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 557 


the apostle in this same letter. However, I think myself, that not 
only is sound doctrine here meant and denoted by the term * de- 
posit,” but also the office committed to Timothy, and all the gifts 
of the Spirit bestowed upon him and necessary to the due discharge 
of that office. 

The second place cited by the Jesuit in this fourth testimony 
is 2 Tim. i. 18, where Paul thus addresses Timothy : UTTOTUT(UGLV 
exe. U'yiaWOv TV horyou, (V Tap €M0U ikovgcas, €v TiO TEL Kat 
arya m TH ev Xpiot@ ‘Incov: that is, “ Have a form or model 
of sound words which thou hast heard of me, with faith and love, 
which is in Christ Jesus." I answer, that vrorvmwors here denotes 
an express image shining forth either in the matter or the form. 
The apostle, therefore, means that Timothy should make no change 
in the matter, or even in the form, of the apostolic doctrine. But 
can any thing in favour of tradition be gathered from this place ? 
Absolutely nothing. For the principal heads of those same words 
are proposed by Paul in that same place, and are the two things 
miotis and ayary, “faith and love.” Both of these may be 
drawn from scripture. For, firstly, the whole of love depends 
upon those two precepts, ** Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with 
all thy heart," &c., and “thy neighbour as thyself;" upon which 
subject Christ discourses, Matth. xxii. 37, and in verse 40 says, that 
* upon these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” 
From the law and the prophets, therefore, all things may be 
derived which concern love. The same is also to be determined 
concerning faith, since it hath no larger extension than charity. 

The third place cited by the Jesuit in this fourth testimony is 
contained in 2 Tim. ii. 2, where Paul thus addresses Timothy : 
** Those things which thou hast heard of me before many witnesses, 
the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to instruct 
others also." These (says Bellarmine) must needs be understood 
of traditions; for if the apostle bad meant the scripture, he 
would not have said, ** what thou hast heard of me before many wit- 
nesses,” but, what I have written. I answer: Bravely reasoned ! 
The apostle in these words commends sound doctrine to Timothy, 
and that no other than what is contained in the scriptures. But, 
in the meanwhile, let Bellarmine shew the consequence of his argu- 
ment: “ What thou hast heard of me commit to faithful men: 
therefore these things can nowhere be found in scripture." The 
apostle would not have that sound doctrine deposited, and in a 
manner buried in books, but set forth before all men; so as that not 


558 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


only should Timothy hold it himself, but commend and communi- 
cate it to others who might be the masters of many more. So also, 
in the present day, there are learned divines who can teach other 
men; but does it, therefore, follow that they do not derive their 
lessons from the scriptures? Nothing, therefore, can be weaker 
than this argument. 

The Jesuit’s fifth testimony is taken from 2 John, verse 12, 
where John writes thus: * Having many things to write unto you, 
I would not write with paper and ink; but I trust shortly to see 
you, and to speak with you face to face, that our joy may be full :” 
and from 3 John, verses 13 and 14, where he writes in almost the 
same words: “I have many things to write, but will not write unto 
you with ink and pen; but I hope to see you shortly, and to speak 
with you face to face.” Therefore, says Bellarmine, John said many 
things to the disciples which are nowhere found in the scriptures. 
I answer: I confess that all things are not found in those very brief 
epistles of John; but are all necessary things therefore not found in 
the rest of the books of scripture, numerous and large as they are? 
Who can be so mad as to argue from so small a part of scripture to 
the whole? Surely this is just as if one were to say, that because 
a finger is not the whole body, therefore the nature of the whole 
body does not consist in all its parts. John says that he chose to 
put off many things till his arrival. What were these?  Doubtless, 
no other than those which are most plainly proposed in the scrip- 
tures, as namely, concerning the nature and benefits of Christ, the’ 
mysteries of our religion, the way to life and salvation, or other 
things of the same kind. | 

These are all the testimonies of scripture cited by the Jesuit, 
which he hath borrowed from Canus in the end of the third 
chapter of his third book. 

But the same Canus, in the sixth chapter of the third book, 
hath other testimonies, to which also we will reply in order. He. 
snatches up one from 1 Cor. xi. 16, where Paul uses these words: 
* [f any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nei- 
ther the churches of God." So great, says Canus, is the force of 
ecclesiastical tradition, that he refutes by custom and the tradition 
of the church those whom neither scripture nor natural reason could 
refute. Whence he concludes that tradition is far more prevailing 
than either scripture or natural reason. For the apostle had before 
proved that women should pray with covered heads by the voice 
both of scripture and of nature: then follow these words, as if he 


d QUESTION THE SIXTH, 559 


had said, If these things cannot prevail with you, if ye are not 
moved by these, yet the institution and practice of the church and 
tradition ought to have great weight with you. I answer: Such 
talk befits a declaimer better than a divine. It is surely strange 
that so great a man should fall into so egregious an hallucination. 
The apostle does not say, If ye despise scripture and nature, I pre- 
sent you with the custom of the church; but he says, that the church 
hath no such custom as that any man should be contentious, but 
rather that all should preserve the common peace. But if any one 
be contentious, he is a stranger to the church of God. The apostle 
does not argue as this man pretends, I will refute him who 
contends against scripture and nature, that women should pray with 
heads uncovered, by the practice of the church; but he says, that 
the churches of God have no custom of allowing any man to be con- 
tentious. Thus he represses contentious spirits by the authority of 
the church, and does not confirm the dogma by mere custom. Now 
that custom of avoiding contention in the church is abundantly sanc- 
tioned by testimonies of scripture. 

The second passage of scripture cited by Canus is contained in 
1 Tim. vi. 3, where Paul writes thus: “If any man teach any 
other doetrine, and consent not to the wholesome words of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, and the doctrine which is according unto 
godliness, he is proud," &c. Paul, says Canus, speaks of oral dis- 
courses, not of the scriptures. I answer: If Canus desires to prove 
that the scriptures are here excluded, because Paul mentions words 
only and not writings, then by the same reason traditions also are 
excluded, because they too are written somewhere. But by words 
Paul means sound doctrine; not because it is not written, but be- 
cause it ought not to be hidden and buried in books, but brought 
forth and set in the light, and held in the mind, the tongue and the 
lips, and communicated and published to others. 

The third passage of scripture cited by Canus is found in 
Galat. i. 9, where Paul writes thus: “If any one preach unto you 
any other gospel than that ye have received, let him be Anathema.” 
Paul says (remarks Canus) *that ye have received," not, *that I 
have written." Upon this place we will speak hereafter; mean- 
while I answer: Where is the consequence in such an argument as 
this, They received ; therefore they did not receive it in a written 
form ? Or again, Since they received many things orally, there- 
fore we also now hold many things on no other security than 
tradition ? 

Our Rhemists, in order to shew their great skill in scripture, 


560 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. len. 


propose some new testimonies. First, they allege 2 Tim. ii. 8, 
upon which place they write, that Paul received the names of the 
two magicians there mentioned from tradition: and they say that 
there are similar traditions of the names of the three kings who 
came out of the East to adore Christ, and who are elsewhere called 
by them Melchior, Gaspar, and Balthazar!; a similar tradition of 
the name of the penitent thief, whom they call Ismas?; and of the 
name of the soldier who pierced Christ's side, whom they pretend 
to have been called Longinus?. This name was doubtless given 
him azo tijs Aoyxms, that is, from the lance by which Christ 
was transpierced. They pretend that he afterwards died a 
martyr: and many traditions of the same stamp have been 
invented in later generations. I answer: Though we should grant 
that the apostle knew the names of the magicians by tradition, yet 
the knowledge of these was pot necessary to salvation, any more 
than it is necessary to our salvation to know the names of those 
three kings: for if this had been necessary, the evangelists would 
not have been silent upon that subject. Let the Rhemists bring 
us, if they can, any necessary dogma of the church, which stood 
upon the foot of mere tradition. It is not to be doubted but that 
some things were received by tradition. From this source was 
derived a great portion of the genealogy which Matthew and Luke 
give in their account of the birth of Christ; which indeed ought to 
be thought much more necessary than any knowledge of the names 
of kings or wizards. Yet who will refuse to confess that the faith 
might be safe without it, provided only we assent to the scriptures 
which establish that Christ was descended by a regular succession 
from Abraham and David? Though, indeed, that very accurate 
genealogy drawn out by the evangelists contributes much to the 
stability of this faith, And whatever necessity is in the thing it- 
self, it may now be learned from the scriptures. For the names of 
Christ’s ancestors are now published, and Paul hath indicated who 
those distinguished magicians were, who so boldly resisted Moses. 

They allege also Actsxx. 35. There (they say) a saying of Christ 

[1 Legends assign various names: Apellius, Amerus, and Damascus; 
Magalath, Galgalath, and Saracin; Ator, Sator, and Paratoras. See 
Casaubon. c. Baron. Exerc. xi. 10: who observes in a MS. note of the copy 
before alluded to, that the most correct order and orthography is, Baltasar, 
Melchior, Jaspar. | 

[2 In the gospel of Nicodemus (c. x. ap. Fabric. cod. Apocr. T. 1. p. 260) 
the penitent thief is called Dimas, and the other Gestas. Gerard Vossius 


writes Gismas and Dismas. Whitaker, I suppose, meant to write Dismas.] 
[3 Ibid. p. 259; where see Fabricius’ note, as also T. rr. p. 472.] 


| QUESTION THE SIXTH. 561 


is recited by Paul, which is nowhere found in the gospels: “ It is 
more blessed to give than to receive.” I answer: I confess that 
this is nowhere expressly and in so many words written in the 
gospels ; but yet something is found in the gospels which comes to 
the same thing. For the precept in Luke xvi. 9, to “make to 
ourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, that they 
may receive us into everlasting habitations,” is to the same effect as 
this sentence. So also, Luke vi. 38, ** Give, and it shall be given 
unto you:" and in the same verse, * Lend, hoping for nothing 
again." There are scattered throughout scripture many similar 
expressions, so as to leave no necessity for going in quest of 
unwritten traditions. Besides, I say, that though all Christ's 
sayings are not written, yet all that were necessary are; so that 
no injury hence accrues to our faith. 

They allege, besides, 1 Cor. xv. 3, where Paul says to the 
Corinthians, “I delivered unto you that which I also received ;” 
and they will have it that their traditions are established by this 
expression. I answer: But they ought to have subjoined the 
sequel, namely, * That Christ died for our sins, according to the 
scriptures, and that he was buried, and rose again the third day, 
according to the scriptures.” Let them deliver likewise doctrines 
according to the scriptures, and we will receive their traditions. 
Now when Paul so frequently repeats in this place, according to 
the scriptures, he means it to be understood that he had drawn 
from the scriptures whatever he had delivered to the Corinthians, 

Fourthly, they allege something from the epistle of Jude, ver. 9, 
in favour of traditions, where Jude proves that we must not speak 
evil of magistrates by the example of Michael, of which he could 
know nothing but by tradition. I answer: I confess this to be most 
true: but yet we learn from other places of scripture also, that it is an 
impious thing to speak ill, yea, or even to think ill of the magistrate. 

Finally, wherever the term apadoats occurs, the Rhemists 
seize upon it as an argument for tradition. But it will not be 
necessary to pursue their other testimonies in detail. 

Other papists have still fresh testimonies. Lindanus seeks to 
establish the authority of unwritten traditions from Jeremiah xxxi. 
32, 83; where the prophet speaks of that new covenant which 
God would make with his people, which he predicts should not 
be the same as the old covenant which he made with the Jews, 
because that was written upon tables of stone; whereas the new 
covenant should be written upon men’s hearts: therefore, says he, 


[ WHITAKER. | s 


562 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


the evangelical doctrine is written not in books, but on the heart. 
I answer: It is not conclusive to say, I will write upon the heart, 
therefore, not upon tables: for it is written both upon tables and 
in the heart. But the difference between the old and the new 
covenant is founded upon this, that most of the ancients had scarce 
any thing but the material tables, and had not the force of the 
covenant inscribed upon their hearts; whereas he predicts that. in 
the new Testament there will be far ampler gifts of the Holy Spirit, 
and many more who shall have the covenant of God impressed 
upon their hearts. The place must be understood as speaking 
comparatively, not absolutely or simply. 

So far, then, concerning the second argument of our oppo- 
nents, which is founded upon the authority of scripture. 





CHAPTER XI. 
BELLARMINE'S THIRD ARGUMENT IS OBVIATED. 


Now follows Bellarmine’s third argument, which depends en- 
tirely upon the testimony and authority of general councils: for 
we make no account of the decretal epistles of certain popes. He 
proposes three councils: the first Nicene, the second Nicene, and 
that of Constantinople, which was the eighth general. 

As to the first council of Nice, he says that Theodoret, Lib. 1. 
c. 8, writes plainly, that Arius was condemned in that council by 
unwritten tradition: for, says he, even the Arians themselves alleged 
some things from scripture; therefore, they were condemned not 
by scripture, but by traditive doctrine. I answer, in the first place : 
What sort of an argument is this? The Arians alleged many 
things from scripture; therefore they could not be refuted out of 
scripture. If this be a firm inference, then certainly no heretics 
can be refuted out of scripture, since all heretics allege scripture. 
But the Arians wickedly wrested the scriptures into an improper 
sense; whose impious expositions the fathers assembled in that 
council refuted out of the scriptures; as is plain from Socrates, 
Sozomen, and Athanasius, who was himself present in the Nicene 
council, and disputed largely against Arius out of scripture. But 
perhaps the Jesuit argues upon the supposition that the Arians 
could allege more passages in their favour from the scripture, than 
the catholic fathers could bring against them, and that therefore 
the catholics could not safely trust the scriptures. But they could 


x1. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 563 


not produce more passages. Nor yet is it always he who can heap 
together most sentences of scripture, that maintains the justest 
cause: for he who brings one sentence of scripture rightly under- 
stood, hath a better cause than he who abuses a great number 
of scripture passages. Athanasius, for his part, refutes the Arians 
out of scripture, and the other fathers trusted more to scripture 
than to tradition. Otherwise Augustine, c. Maximin. Arian. Lib. 
ut. c. 14, would never have recalled him from councils to the 
scriptures. In that passage is the celebrated saying: ‘“ Neither 
should I allege the council of Nice to you, nor you that of Rimini 
to me, as if we could prejudge the question. Iam not bound by 
the authority of the latter, nor you by that of the former. Let 
the contest be matter with matter, cause with cause, reason with 
reason, on the foot of scriptural authorities, which are witnesses 
not peculiar to either side, but common to us both!" Augustine 
therefore trusted most to the scriptures in this question. Besides, 
Constantine (as Theodoret relates, Lib. 1. c. 7) plainly says that 
the doctrine of the Holy Ghost is written, avaypartov. These 
are his words: “The books of the evangelists and apostles, as 
also the oracles of the old prophets, plainly teach us, what we 
should think of divine subjects. Laying aside, then, all factious 
contention, let us resolve the points of inquiry by the testimony of 
the inspired words: éx cv OcomvevaTwv Xoryov AaBwuev TaV 
Cntoupevev THv Avow?.” So that Constantine exhorts the fathers 
of that council to determine this whole controversy out of the 
books of the prophets and apostles. Secondly, I reply, that his 
assertion that Theodoret expressly writes that the Arians were 
condemned by unwritten tradition, is untrue. For Theodoret writes 
that a writing of Eusebius of Nicomedia was convicted of open blas- 
phemy by the scriptures. His words are these: cuvyyaryov éx T&v 
rypapwv, they collected out of the scriptures testimonies against 
Eusebius and the other Arians?. I confess, indeed, that the term 
opoovatos Was proved orthodox out of antiquity, as having been 
used 130 years before by bishops who then flourished in the church, 


[! Lib. rr. c. xiv. $. 3. p. 848. Opp. T. x. Bassan. 1797. ] 

[2 ...To) mavayiov mveóparos rjv SiacKadiay ávdypamTov Éxovras. eday- 
yedixal yap, dou, (8i8Xo: kai ámooroNikal Kal Trav madaav mpopntav rà Ócaní- 
cpara capes nuads à xpr) mepi Tod Üe(ov dpoveiv exmadevovor. Tv moXeporrotóv 
otv áreAácavres Epi, ex Tov Üconvevorov, k. T. é. Lib. 1. 7.] 

[3 atrn ràv Apeuavóv 1) Od0appévg Siavora. GAG kal évradOa of érickoror, 
Oewpnoavres éxeivav rd Sddov, avvijyayov ék ràv ypapav ró àmavyacpa, rjv re 
myn, «. T. €. Ibid. c. 8.] 

36—2 


564 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


since the Arians slanderously asserted it to be a new word. The 
term, we confess, is not found in scripture; yet the meaning of the 
term is found there. ‘The Arians,” says Theodoret, in that same 
place, * were condemned by the words of scripture rightly un- 
derstood,” e£ eyypadwv per evoe(deias evvoovuévev Xé£ecv ka- 
exptOncav. What could be written more expressly? He adds too. 
that the words of scripture alleged against the Arians had the same 
force and meaning as the Homoiisios,—vaurnv exer THY onuaciar. 

I come now to the second council of Nice, in the sixth session, 
whereof these words occur: ‘Many things are observed by us 
without the authority of scripture, as for example, the worship of 
images!" J answer: We make no account of that council, and do 
not acknowledge its authority; yea, we say that it was an impious 
and wicked conventicle, wherein many things were concluded most 
plainly against scripture. As the first council of Nice was truly 
catholic, so this second council of Nice was absolutely heretical : 
whereof we mean to speak in its proper place. If the papists had 
any shame, they would themselves be ashamed of this council. 
However, we take what he grants us, that these fathers have said 
that the worship of images cannot be proved from scripture. Why 
then is he not ashamed to abuse so foully so many places of 
scripture for the support of this practice ? 

Thirdly, Bellarmine objects the eighth general council, in its 
sixth action, where the fathers of that council say that they hold 
the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions. I answer in precisely 
the same way as in the former case. We entertain no reverence 
for the authority of this council, which was like the preceding, and 
established a profane idolatry. It was held 900 years after 
Christ. These were Bellarmine’s councils. Hath he not given us 
a beautiful demonstration of his thesis ? 





CHAPTER XII. 


THE FOURTH ARGUMENT, FOUNDED UPON THE TESTIMONIES OF THE 
FATHERS, IS ANSWERED. 


In the fourth place, our opponent collects the testimonies of the 
fathers; in the management of which argument he is large and 

[1 kai eyypapas kal dypapws ék róv dpx$Ücv xpóvev abrds.... éorppiEar, 
peO dv kai rjv ràv cemróv clkóvov dvdüe£w. Concill. Labbe et Cossart. T. 
vu. p. 406. Paris. 1671.] 


XII. | | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 565 


copious, yet so as to combine at the same time judgment and 
selection. These we must needs answer, as well because our 
adversaries repose on these their special confidence, as because it is 
fit that all who are desirous of becoming learned divines should 
be thoroughly acquainted with all these matters. Neither in this, 
nor in any other controversy, can they possibly prevail against us 
by the scriptures; and therefore they press us as closely as they 
ean with the authority of the fathers. Indeed, even though the 
fathers were opposed to us, and we could give no answer to the 
arguments drawn from them, this could inflict no real damage 
upon our cause, since our faith does not depend upon the fathers, 
but upon the scriptures. Nevertheless, I am far from approving 
the opinion of those who think that the testimonies of the fathers 
should be rejected or despised. Whether we regard then the 
weakness of our brethren, or the confidence of our adversaries, we 
should answer these testimonies also, nor deem our pains ill 
expended upon such a task. However, we must take heed that we 
do not, with the papists, ascribe too much to the fathers, but use 
our rights and liberty when we read them; examining all their 
sayings by the rule of scripture, receiving them when they agree 
with it, but freely and with their good leave rejecting them when- 
ever they exhibit marks of discrepancy. 

He brings first into the field CLEMENS Romanus, a great man 
undoubtedly, whom he sets upon a par with the apostles themselves. 
What he hath written, says the Jesuit, in his book of the apostolic 
canons, and his eight books of apostolical constitutions, he undoubt- 
edly received from the apostles. I answer: Bellarmine’s undoubtedly 
is no sort of argument. We do not acknowledge this Clement, nor 
make any account of the praises which Turrian? bestows upon him. 
He praises and defends also the Decretal epistles, than which it is 
quite certain that nothing is less deserving of praise. Eusebius, 
H. E. Lib. ur. c. 38, testifies that formerly many forged and adul-. 
terated pieces were published under the name of Clemens?. The 
same historian affirms in the same chapter, that there is but one 


[2 Pro Canon. Apostol. Florent. 1572.] 

[3 ieréov 0€ ws kai Oevrépa ris eiva( Aéyerat ToU KAjpevtos émictoAn. Ov 
pny €0' ónoíos Tj mporépa kai ra)TQgv 'yvópuiov émirágeÜa, Stu pndé kai rovs 
dpxaíovs abr; Kexpnuévous topev. "Hr dé kal érepa moAvemíj kai papa ovy- 
ypáppara ws Tod avrod éxÜée xal mporgv mwés mponyayov..... Gv ovd ddos 
pun Tis mapa rois madawois Péperar- oddSé yap Kabapdy tis dmoaroAwis dp- 
Godogias àroo (e tov xapakrijpa.—Ed. Heinich. T. 1. pp. 280—2.] 


566 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


genuine epistle of this author, namely, that written to the Corin- 
thians. Jerome testifies to the same point in his catalogue, under 
the head of CrEMENs, Nicephorus also, Lib. ru. c. 18, and 
Epiphanius, Heres. 30,! bear witness that the heretics formerly 
took many things from the books of Clemens, but especially from 
the book of the apostolical canons, which, together with the eight 
books of Constitutions, was certainly condemned by the sixth 
general council at Constantinople, Can. 2.? But when Bellarmine 
affirms Clemens to have been the author of the apostolical canons, 
he is at variance with the other papists, who say that these canons 
were written by the apostles themselves, assembled at Antioch. 
So Peresius?, in the third part of his traditions, brings in Anacletus, 
saying, that the apostles met at Antioch, and wrote these canons 
there. But it easily appears that this is impossible: for in the 
last canon is given an enumeration of the canonical books, many of 
which were written after the death of some of the apostles : indeed, 
James, the son of Zebedee, was slain by Herod Antipas, before any 
book was written. These canons, therefore, were not written by all 
the apostles. Besides, for what purpose should the apostles have 
assembled? Are we to say that it was to write their traditions, 
when the papists maintain that the apostles judged that tradition 
should be promulgated orally, and not by writing? But if they 
deemed it fit that traditions should be written, why did they not 
write them in the books of scripture ? Farther, if these canons were 
written by the apostles, they would have equal authority with the 
canonical books, which even the papists themselves do not venture 
to affirm. Again, there are some things in these canons which 
even the papists do not approve ; as for example, in the fifth canon 
these words occur: “If either a bishop or a priest dismiss his wife 
under the pretext of religion, let him be excommunieated*." And, 
in canon 8, we read thus: “If any priest, deacon, or bishop, doth 
not join with him who communicates, le& him be deposed from his 


[! c..15, p. 139. ed. Petav. where, however, Epiphanius is not speaking of 
these canons, but of the Recognitions of Clement. ] 

[2 He means the Quini-sext council in Zrullo (Ann. 692). But there the 
Canons are not condemned, but confirmed.—Bevereg. Pandectt. T. r. p. 158.] 

(? Peiresius Aiala, De Divin. Apost. atque Eccles. Traditionibus. Paris. 
1550.] 

[4 émíekomos i) mpeofjvrepos 4 Sidkovos Tv éavro) yuvaixa pr ékBaXMéro 
mpopdace. evAaBeias: cay 86 éxBáAg, adhopitécOw.—It is can. vi. in Whiston's 
Primit. Christ. Vol. 1. ] 


xit] QUESTION THE SIXTH. | 567 


office5" And in canon 9° it is enjoined, that “the whole people 
should communicate with the minister who celebrates the eucharist; 
and if any do otherwise, let him be excommunicated.” The papists 
do not observe these laws. Again, in canon 37, it is required that 
“councils should be held twice a-year*," which they themselves 
do not comply with. There is a matter in canon 46 which they 
do not admit, as may readily be perceived from inspecting the 
canon itself. Finally, this book appears to be a farrago and 
patch-work, made up out of the acts of other councils, especially 
that of Antioch; for many similar things occur in the councils of 
Antioch. Now it is not probable that the Antiochene fathers took 
anything from these canons: for, if they had, they would not 
have concealed it, but rather have told it distinctly, in order 
to gain thereby the greater credit for their sanctions and decrees. 
They make, however, no mention of this book; a plain proof 
that it was then either not published or not allowed any aposto- 
lical authority. 

I come now to the other book of Clemens, the Apostolical 
Constitutions ; which also, if they really emanated from the apostles, 
would have equal authority with the canonical books, And indeed, 
in the last canon, these constitutions are ranked among the cano- 
nical books. The papists, however, do not yet venture to pass 
such a judgment upon this piece; which conduct cannot escape 
the charge of impiety, if the book is Clement’s, and contains the 
constitutions of the apostles. It is a most weighty objection against 
the authority of this book also, that we read in the last canon, that 
this book should not be made publie on account ** of the mysteries 
which it contains,” dia va év avrQ pvotixa. This agrees better 
with the rites of Eleusis than with the christian religion. The 
apostles were sent to preach openly the message they had received 
from Christ, and to publish it to all, because necessary for all. 
“Those things which ye have heard in the ear, preach ye upon 
the housetops,” says Christ to his apostles. And Paul says, 1 Cor. 
li. 23: “I delivered unto you," that is, to you all, “that which 
I received of the Lord.” Besides, even the papists themselves do 


5 » EN A ^ 7 A , ^ ^ ^ 
[5 et tus émiokomos 1) mpeaBvrepos 3) Oudkovos..... mpoaopas yevouerns pr 
peradaBo..... apopiléoO@.—can. IX. | 

[9$ can. x. | 


[7 Aevrepov ToU Érovs aivodos ywéobw Trav émokémov.—can, xxxvin.] 

8 34) ^ ^ \ ^ > y - , »' » 

[8 émíckomos 7 mpeoBórepos Tov karà dAjOeay exovra Bdnticpa eay avabey 
Banrion, i) Tov ueuoAvapévoy Tapa ràv doeBady éàv pr Banrías, KabatpeioOo.— 
can, XLVI. ] 


568 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


not receive all the contents of this book, and many of them are 
manifestly false. In Lib. rr c. 59, Clemens, mentioning James the 
Lord's brother, excludes him from the number of the apostles!; 
whereas Paul, Galat. ii. 9, reckons him amongst even the leading 
apostles: yea, this author himself, Lib. vr. c. 142, as if he had 
forgotten himself, speaks of him as one of the apostles. In Lib. rm. 
c. 932, he mentions the Agap:, and explains the manner. of con- 
ducting them; while Paul condemns them, 1 Cor. ii. 21; and it is 
certain that they were abolished long before. In Lib. rr. c. 63, 
he says that the people ought to assemble in the congregation 
twice a day, morning and evening?; which practice is not now 
observed even by the papists. In Lib. v. c. 15, he says that 
those words which Christ spoke of Judas (* He that dippeth with 
me in the dish, the same is he that shall betray me") were uttered 
by Christ five days before the passover*: whereas it is evident 
from scripture, Matth. xxvi. 31, that Christ was betrayed that 
same night. In the same book, c. 16, he affirms that Judas was 
absent when Christ celebrated the supper5; which contradicts not 
only scripture, but the fathers themselves. Its repugnance to 
scripture is plain from a comparison of the three verses, 13, 14, 
and 15, of Luke xxi. Nor is it less certain that it is opposed to 
the judgment of the fathers: for Dionysius, Eccles. Hierarch. 
c. 9, affirms him to have been present. So Cyprian, in his dis- 
course de Ablutione Pedum. So Augustine, Epist. 163, and 
Comment. in Ps. 3, and in Ps. 10, and Tract. 63 in Joann. So 
Chrysostom, in his Homily upon the thief. So finally, Aquinas, in 
the third part of his Sum. Quest. 81, art 2.  Pachymeres, indeed, 
upon Dionysius the Areopagite, Zecles. Hierarch. cap. 9, sup- 
poses Judas to have been absent; for thus he writes: * He delivered 
the mysteries to the disciples alone, after Judas had gone forth 
from supper, he being unworthy of them®:” but when he wrote this, 

[1 'Hyueis oiv of karafueÜévres eivar páprvpes ths mapovaías abro), avy 
'"Iaxofe TO ro? Kupiov ddeApa.—p. 259. c. 55.] 

[? p. 343; but that passage down to 7d exevos tis éxAoyrs is commonly 
thought an interpolation.] 

[? mapatve: rà Na@ eis Tiv exkAnoiay évOeXexi(ew OpÓpov kai éomépas ékaors 
57uépas.—c. 59, p. 267.] i 

[4 The constitutions speak only of its occurring, 77 mé€urrn, i. e. the fifth 
day of the week.—p. 317.] 

[5 lovda py evpwmrapóvros.—lbid. See Jeremy Taylor's Life of Christ, Part 
3. Sect. xv. $. 13, and the authors there cited.] 

[9 rà puornpia pdvots rois pabnrais pera To e&edOciv ékeivov ék Tov Oeimvov 
mapédwkey, às ava£(ov TovTwy Ovros 'Iov0a.] 


XII. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 569 


he followed his own conjectures and opinion, not scripture. This 
same Clemens, Lib. v. c. 18,7 enjoins observances of Easter which 
Epiphanius, writing against the Audians, blames as heretical, Heres. 
50; and, indeed, Epiphanius there tells us that the Audians de- 
fended their opinion by the authority of an apostolical constitution. 
Carolus Bovius writes thus upon that passage: ‘ Wherefore it is 
so far from being true that the apostles established what we read 
in this chapter, that even the direct contrary seems to have been 
enjoined by them." This is a fine author of apostolical traditions. 
Besides, in Lib. vr. c. 14,? he mentions an epistle which he states 
to have been written by all the apostles along with Paul; whereas 
James, the son of Zebedee, was dead before Paul came into the 
apostolic college. This, therefore, is demonstrably false. Finally, 
in Lib. vu. c. 24,!? he brings forward several regulations void of all 
authority about fasting upon the fourth and sixth days of the 
week, and the observance of the sabbath (Saturday) and the Lord's 
day ; and he says that we should not fast upon any Saturday save 
that one whereon the Lord lay in the sepulchre: all which are 
now exploded by the papists. It is therefore manifest that this 
book is not genuine, but supposititious, and composed by some pre- 
tended Clemens. This is so clear, that Bellarmine himself hath 
thought fit to omit this author in his Pd edition, and brand 
him with this mark of insult. 

In the second place he objects Ianatius, who, as Eusebius 
testifies, Lib. mr. e. 35,3 exhorted all the churches to adhere to 
the apostolic traditions, which traditions he asserts that he had “also 


(^ The constitutions there direct that Easter should not be kept with the 
Jews, which is directly opposed to the apostolical rule as given by Epiphanius, 
Heres. lxx. $. 10: dpifovot yap ev rH OÓuara£ew of dmóoroAou dru Opes py 
Vnjinre, àAAà mowjre, Grav oi adeApol bpóv of ék mepirous: per abràv dpa 
Touire.... k&v re mAavgÜóoi, wnde )piv ueXéro.—Grabe, Spicil i. 46. It is 
observable that Epiphanius does not venture directly to impugn this rule, 
though he is obliged to recur to a monstrous device to evade its natural 
meaning.] 

[5 Quare tantum abest, ut ea quz» in hac capite legimus apostoli statuerint, 
ut “etiam contraria horum ab ipsis preecepta videantur.] 

[? The names 'Idkefgos kai 'Iedvvgs, vioi ZeBedaiov, occur there in the 
enumeration of the apostles then assembled. But the passage is probably an 
interpolation.] 

[10 dpets 8€ 7) Tas mévre vgore)care nuépas, 7) TeTpada kai mapaakevrjv . . . . rÓ 
cáB9Barov pévroe kal rv kvpiakr)v éoprá(ere ....€v O6 uóvov caBBarov.... dep 
vnoTevew Tpoonkev.—p. 369. | | 

(11 The Greek is given in the text, infra. ] 


570 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


left in writing by way of precaution, and lest posterity should be 
reduced to any doubt concerning them." I answer: First, the 
passage of Eusebius is either originally obscure or now corrupted, 
as is plain from an inspection of the Greek text. By the tra- 
dition thus mentioned, Eusebius means the sincere doctrine of the 
apostolic preaching, as is manifest from the place itself. His words 
are, ampit éyecOa tev dmooTONev Tapadocews. If he had 
meant such numerous traditions as the papists dream of, he would 
not have said wapadccews, but zapaóocewv. Ignatius, perceiving 
that many heretics had at that time begun to corrupt the apostolic 
doctrine, declared that it seemed necessary to him that it should be 
committed to writing, “for the sake of security," vzéo acdadeias 
cvaturovcOa, and as a provision for posterity. Therefore, when 
he was at Smyrna, he wrote letters to various churches, wherein he 
comprised those traditions to which Eusebius here refers; and that 
these were no popish traditions may be understood from the circum- 
stance, that in these epistles Ignatius disputes against Simon, Ce- 
rinthus, Menander, and other heretics, who entertained impious 
sentiments concerning the person of Christ. Now against the 
heresies of such there is no need of unwritten traditions, inasmuch 
as they are plainly condemned in the scriptures. Bellarmine hath 
not followed Eusebius himself, but the faulty version of Ruffinus, 
where * traditions" are spoken of in the plural, whereas the Greek 
has “tradition” in the singular; and certain words not found in the 
Greek are subjoined, to the effect that Ignatius “left these traditions 
in writing.” Besides, Ruffinus says that the apostolic tradition re- 
quired to be written for the benefit of posterity, that no doubt 
might remain with succeeding generations: but the traditions of the 
papists are, in the first place, most uncertain, so as that the interests 
of posterity seem not sufficiently therein consulted ; secondly, the 
papists cannot find all their traditions in these epistles of Ignatius ; 
nay, not the thousandth part of them. Bellarmine produces only 
three traditions out of Ignatius, namely, Lent, minor orders, and the 
Lord's day. As to Lent, I confess that it is mentioned in the 
epistle to the Philippians: but of that elsewhere. As to orders, he 
does indeed reckon a few of them, but not as sacraments ; nor does he 
enumerate them in the same manner as the papists do, since he men- 
tions singers, whom they do not make even a minor order. However, 
the third tradition, of the Lord's day, is no unwritten verity, for it is 
contained in the scriptures; as namely, Rev. i. 10. ev 77H kvpiak 
"u6pq. l Cor. xvi 1; Acts xx. 7, wig caBBatwv. The words 


XII. | | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 571 


of Eusebius, where he speaks of Ignatius, are these: zpovrpemé T 
ample éxecOa Tis THY ATOTTOAWY TapAddcews, qv UTEP aopadrsias 
kal éyypapws yon mapTupopevos OvatuTovaOa ava^ykatov HryEtTo. 
Which passage our countryman, Christopherson, hath thus translated: 
* Then he exhorted them to adhere closely to the apostolic tradition; 
to which having borne stedfast witness, he judged that, for its safer 
preservation to succeeding time, it should be committed to writ- 
ing!” The sense of which words is that, when Ignatius had borne 
witness to and professed the apostolic faith by word of mouth, 
he deemed it necessary to commit the same to writing also, in order 
to check the heretics more effectually, and provide for the service of 
the churches hereafter. Upon which account, as it follows immedi- 
ately in that same place, he wrote various epistles. Hence we 
gather against the papists, that Ignatius deemed it no way safe that 
any doctrine should be left in an unwritten state. Yet these men 
pretend that the apostles delivered down many things in an un- 
written form, as if they could not have foreseen the necessity of 
that which Ignatius, a very short time after the apostles, perceived 
to be necessary in the highest degree. 

Secondly, I say, that it may be doubted whether these epistles, 
which are said to be Ignatius’, are his or not. For Theodoret, 
in his third Dialogue against the heretics, cites certain words 
from the epistle to the Smyrnzans, which are not found in that 
epistle as now extant. The words as they stand in Theodoret 
are these: * They receive not eucharists and oblations, because 
they do not confess that the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour 
Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father 
raised again in his mercy®.” Theodoret cites this sentence from 


[! Deinde hortatus est, ut apostolorum traditioni mordicus adheerescerent : 
quam quidem asseveranter testificatus, quo tutius posteritati reservaretur, 
necessario scriptis mandandam existimavit. ^ Valesius translates it thus: 
Hortatusque est ut apostolorum traditionibus tenaciter inheererent: quas 
quidem ad certiorem posteritatis notitiam testimonio suo confirmatas, scriptis 
mandare necessarium duxit. But may not 767 uaprvpópevos mean, “being now 
upon the point of martyrdom ?"—though I confess the active paprupéw is the 
regular form in such eases. ] 

[2 edxaptorias kai mpoodopàs ovk dmoOéyovra, dia TO p!) ÓpoXoyeiv Tiv 
ebxapuaríav aápka eiva, Tod Zorfjpos ruv "Incod Xpiorod, Tv vmép rv ápapriv 
judy maÜo)jcav, jv xpuoTórgyr. 6 mar)p Wyeipev.—c. 19. p. 106. Tigur. 1593. 
These words are to be found in the shorter epistles, ad Smyrnsos. c. 6. 
p. 412. ed. Jacobs: but it is to be remembered that the Florentine text was 
first published by Is. Vossius, Amstel. 1646. The publication of the still 


572 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ CH. 


Ignatius’ epistle to the Smyrnsans, which is nowhere to be dis- 
covered in the present epistle to the Smyrneans. Jerome also, 
in his third Dialogue against the Pelagians, hath produced a tes- 
timony from the epistles of Ignatius which is not at present to be 
found in them. “Ignatius,” says he, “an apostolic man and a 
martyr, writes boldly, ‘The Lord chose for his apostles those who 
were sinners above all men’!.” Now in these epistles Ignatius hath 
written nothing of the kind; and if he ever wrote it, he did so with 
more boldness than truth: for who would venture to say that the 
apostles were the greatest sinners among all mankind? Eusebius, 
Lib. nr. cap. 36, testifies that Ignatius wrote seven epistles to cer- 
tain churches: but there are now extant twelve. Jerome too, in 
his Catalogue under the title Ianatius, enumerates only seven?: 
whence it is plain that the other five are undoubtedly spurious. 
These are, the epistle to Mary, to the Tarsensians, to Hero, to the 
Antiochenes, to the Philippians, from which last are derived almost 
all the passages which our adversaries seize upon in Ignatius for 
the defence of traditions. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome makes any 
mention of these epistles: therefore it is certain that they are 
supposititious. What we should determine about the rest, whether 
they are Ignatius’ or some other writer’s, is far from clear; since 
some passages are cited by ancient authors from the epistles of 
Ignatius, which are wanting in these pieces. Eusebius, Lib. mr. c. 
36, testifies? that Polycarp, in his epistle to the Philippians, writes 
that he had been requested by Ignatius to convey their epistle into 
Syria. This is not to be found in the epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp 
which we now have. Many proofs might be brought forward from 
the epistle to the Philippians, which epistle the Papists principally 
object to us, demonstrating it not to be the work of Ignatius, a man 


shorter Syriac text by Cureton, Lond. 1845, has confirmed the suspicions 
which most unprejudiced critics entertained of the integrity of even the 
Florentine text. | 

[| Ignatius, vir apostolicus et martyr, scribit audacter, Elegit Dominus 
apostolos qui super omnes homines peccatores erant. But there can be 
little doubt that Jerome here by mistake wrote Ignatius for Barnabas.—See 
Barnab. Ep. c. 5, p. 131. Monach. 1844: rods idiovs dmoordXous .. . . é&eAé£aro, 
Óvras bmép mácav ápapríav avopwrépovs. | 

[2 Scripsit unam epistolam ad Ephesios, alteram ad Magnesianos, tertiam 
ad Trullenses, quartam ad Romanos. Et inde egrediens scripsit ad Philadel- 
pheos, et ad Smyrnzeos, et proprie ad Polycarpum. | 

[3 eypayaré poi kai dpeis kai Lyvártos, tva éáv tis amépxnrat eis Supiay, kai 


Ta map. pv drokopioy ypáppara. —T. 1. p. 277.] 


xu. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 573 


of the next age to the apostles. In it he writes: “If any one fast 
upon the Lord’s day, or any sabbath but that only whereon the 
Lord lay in the grave, he is a murderer of Christ*.”. Now Augus- 
tine in his last epistle to Jerome affirms, that it was customary at 
Rome to fast on Saturday. And, in Epist. 86, he says that it is 
lawful also to fast upon the Lord’s day. Again, Ignatius says in 
that same epistle*, that if any one keep the passover with the Jews, 
he is partner and in communion with those who murdered Christ, 
kowwwvos eai. TOv amoKTewavTwy Tov Kupiov. Now it is certain 
that Polycarp kept Easter with the Jews, and (if we believe others) 
that John and Philip did so too. In his epistle to Mary he says 
that Clemens succeeded Anacletus$: but the papists make him to 
have succeeded Peter; and Peter in his own lifetime calls him 
bishop and citizen of Rome, Constit. Apost. Lib. vr. c. 8.7 In 
the epistles to the Philadelphians and Antiochenes he assumes not 
to himself any apostolical authority ; which he ought to have done, 
if he were prescribing apostolie traditions to the churches: for 
apostolical dogmas should be received as of equal authority with 
apostolieal writings. In like manner Jerome, in his third Dialogue 
against the Pelagians, attributes to him no such great authority. 
But if Ignatius had published apostolic traditions, he should have 
claimed for himself the highest authority. Besides, although the 
papists sometimes object these epistles to us, and seem to set a high 
value upon them, they cannot deny that many things are found in 
them which they themselves do not approve. In the epistle to the 
Philadelphians, he says that a bishop ought to be chosen by the 
church itself. Then, in the same epistle, he maintains that a bishop 
is subject to no one, nor bound to render an account to any one but 
Christ himself. This, I am very sure, the papists will not bear, 
who would make all bishops responsible to the Roman pontiffs. In 
the epistle to the Trallians he writes, that there is no “ elect 


[4 ef rus kvpiakrv 7) aáfBarov yvnorever, TARY évós GaBBarov Tov mácxa, otros 
xptoroxrévos éotiv.—p. 112. Ed. Voss. Lond. 1680. | 

[5 ef res pera "lov0a(ov émireAei TO máoxa, 1?) rà avuBoÀa THs €opris abróv 
üéxyera,, kowcvós éaT. THY dmokrewávrov Tov Kópiov Kal Tovs dmocTÓAovs adrod. 
—lIbid.] 

[6 So in the Latin: adhuc existente te in Roma, apud beatum papam 
Cletum ; cui successit ad prsesens digne beatus.—Clemens. p. 72. But Vossius' 
Greek Text reads rama Aítvo.] 

[7 cupmapdvrev po (Petrus loquitur)....d0eA$óv KMjuevros tod Popaíov 
émickómov re kai ToAiTov.—p. 387.] 


574 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY, [ CH. 


church!," éxkXxotav exrexryv, without a bishop, deacons, and pres- 
byters: and in the same epistle he professes himself able to under- 
stand * heavenly things," ca ezovpava, the whole celestial state, 
and all the ranks of angels; and yet declares himself inferior to 
Peter and Paul?, who yet neither of them had much skill in such 
matters. In the epistle to the Magnesians he expresses an opinion 
that greatly needs confirmation, that no presbyter, deacon, or 
lay-man, should do anything without the bishop, even as Christ 
does nothing without the Father?; and then he cites the passage, 
* [| can of mine own self do nothing.” But we have said enough of 
these epistles ; and it may be gathered sufficiently from the previous 
remarks, what judgment should be formed of this Ignatius. The 
papists do not venture to defend these things: yet they ought to 
defend Ignatius in everything, if there be any truth in their 
assertion, that he committed the apostolical traditions to writing. 
In the third place follows HxcEsiPPus, a man undoubtedly of 
great name and authority. Eusebius, Lib. rv. c. 8, writes concerning 
him, that he comprised apostolical traditions in five books*; and 
although (says Bellarmine) those books are not now extant, yet we 
may thence infer that the apostles did not themselves write every- 
thing that they taught. I answer: I acknowledge that the testi- 
mony of Eusebius is clear ; but I reply, that under the term tradition 
the doctrine of the apostles, and not unwritten traditions, is denoted. 
For so Eusebius states that he comprised in those books the sincere 
and undissembled exposition of the apostolic preaching, 75v azAavi 
mapacoatv TOU ATOTTOALKOU Knpvyuatos: whence it is plain that 
he wrote no other things than those which are delivered in scrip- 
ture. Jerome, in his catalogue, under the head HrcrsiPPvus5, 
affirms that these books contain the history of what was done by 
Christ, the apostles, and succeeding bishops, down to Hegesippus’ 
own time. However, we should bear in mind Bellarmine’s ad- 


[! xepis rovray éxkAnoia ékXekri) odk €oTw.—p. 157.] 

[2 kai Óbvapat voetv ra erovpana, kai Tas dyyedukds Takers... TavTa ywecKav éyó, 
ov müvros 75n TeTeAElopat, 7 paOntHs elut otos IIavAos kai IIérpos.—pp. 158, 159. ] 

[3 @omep oiv 6 Kópios dvev tod llarpós ovdev rovet, od Ovvapa yap, doi, 
grovel am épavro) ovdev, ovro kal tpeis dvev Tod émikómov, pndée mperBvrepos, 
pnde Sidxovos, unde Xaikós.—p. 146. ] 

[4 év mévre 07] ody ovyypdppacw obros Thy adtavi mapddoow Tod dmoaToAuko 
Knpvypatos amAovotaty ovvtager ypadijs tropynpatioduevos.—T. 1. p. 309. Ed. 
Hein.] 


[5 Omnes a passione Domini usque ad suam etatem ecclesiasticorum 
actuum tenens historias.—c. 22.] 


x11. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 575 


mission, that these books are not now extant. For there are now 
extant five books under the name of Hegesippus?, which he does 
not venture to defend, because they contain a history, not from 
Christ to his own times, but from the Maccabees to the destruction 
of Jerusalem. Besides, the Hegesippus now extant informs us that 
many more books than five were written by him, while Jerome and 
Eusebius mention five only. Lastly, this Hegesippus, Lib. rrt. c. 5, 
makes mention of the city and church of Constantinople, and says 
that new Rome, that is Constantinople, was made equal to the old. 
Now this did not take place before the times of Constantine, by 
whom that name was given to the city : whereas the old Hegesippus 
lived long before Constantine's times. Hence it sufficiently appears 
that books do not always belong to the authors whose names they 
bear: for who would not suppose these books of Hegesippus to be 
genuine, if it were not manifest from their own contents that they 
are supposititious ? Let us come now to the remaining fathers. 

I come therefore to Dionysius the Areopagite’, whom our oppo- 
nent specially objects to us, as an author of undoubted excellence. 
From him he produces a clear testimony, taken from his book of 
the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, c. 1, where Dionysius says, that ** the 
chiefs of the sacerdotal function (that is the apostles) delivered these | 
sublime and supersubstantial (vzepovoia) matters, partly in writing, 
and partly without writing5," éyypapoy kai aypados punoect. I 
answer, confessing that Dionysius is in some places a great patron 
of traditions. However, even if he were the true, and not a suppo- 
sititious, false and pretended Dionysius, they would be able to 
allege but few things from him in defence of their traditions, Yet, 
since he undertook to write upon the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, he 
would have been bound to develope accurately all the apostolical 
traditions, if any such there were, and if he were indeed the true 
Areopagite, the disciple of Paul, which for my part I am far from 
thinking; although I perceive that his defence hath been engaged 
in very zealously by some great men, and especially by Ambrosius 

[9 Paris. 1511.] 

[^ See Daillé De Scriptis quz sub Dionysii Areopag. et Ignatii hominibus 


cireumferuntur.—Genev. 1666. and compare Pearson, Vindic. Ignat. Part. 1. 
cap. 10. pp. 136—148. Cantab. 1672.] 

[8 Zemrórara 0€ Aóyia. ravrá dapev, doa mpós róv évÜéov nuav ieporeAearóv 
€v aywoypapots nuiv kai Beodoytkois Sedw@pynrar OéNrois, kal py Oma mwpós Trav 
aitav iepàv ávüpàv d)UXeTépa pinoer kai yeirovi mos 70r Tis ovpavias lepapxías 
€k voos eis voov, Sia uégov Adyou.... ypadhs ékrós, of kaÜryeuóves judy épvrj- 


5cav.—Dionys. Areop. Opp. T. 1. p. 201. Paris. 1644. ] 


576 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


Conraldulensis. Bellarmine too waxes wroth with Luther and 
Calvin for denying these books to be the production of Dionysius 
the Areopagite. It is necessary therefore to say something upon 
the authority of these books: and I will bring forward, not con- 
jectures or suspicions, but most certain demonstrations to shew that 
this is not the true Dionysius. First, Eusebius and Jerome make 
no mention of these books; which ought to be a very weighty 
proof that they were not composed by Dionysius. They used 
the utmost diligence in collecting and searching for the books 
of the ancients, so as that, if even a single epistle were written by 
any distinguished man, they took care not to omit mentioning it: 
and can we believe it possible that they either did not see such 
books as these, written upon such great and distinguished subjects, 
or judged them not worthy of being noticed ? Secondly, no author 
of any considerable antiquity mentions these books: which proves 
suffieiently that they cannot belong to the same remote age as 
Dionysius the Areopagite. For many things therein occur which 
make against the ancient heretics, especially the Arians, and which 
certainly the Nicene fathers would not have failed to urge, if such 
books were then extant, or the author of them had been held in any 
estimation. Thirdly, the style of these books is not plain and 
simple, but too subtle, inflated and full of affectation, very unlike 
the apostolic. Fourthly, Erasmus, upon Acts xvii, is large in 
proving that this is not the true Dionysius. And before him Valla, 
upon the same place thinks that a heretic by name Apollinaris 
was the writer of these books which pass under the name of 
Dionysius. Theodore Gaza, too, in his Preface to the Problems of 
Alexander Aphrodisius, addressed to Nicholas V. denies that this is 
the true and ancient Dionysius. Likewise Cajetan, in his commen- 
tary upon Acts xvii, says, that “these books were not written by 
the apostolic Dionysius!.” There were many Dionysiuses formerly 
in the church: perhaps these books were written by some of them, 
and afterwards, under a false impression, attributed to Dionysius 
the Areopagite, who was the most famous of that name. /i/thly, 
it appears most clearly from the books themselves, what opinion 
we should form of this sort of writers. In the books of the Celes- 
tial Hierarchy he treats a subject surely divine, the very order of 
the heavenly commonwealth; an argument full of difficulty and 
audacity. The apostle Paul, 2 Cor. xii. 14, says, that “these and 


[! An autem istemet sit ille Dionysius... .certwm non est.—p. 495. 2. 
Paris. 1571.] 


x11. | 3 QUESTION THE SIXTH. 577 


other such subjects are ineffable :” he adds besides, * that it is not 
lawful for a man to utter them.” How then could Dionysius dare 
to utter these things, even if he knew them? Or from what source 
could he possibly come to know them? Whence, I beseech you, 
did he derive this wondrous knowledge ? From revelation? How 
is this proved? Why were they not rather revealed to: the apostles, 
if it concerned us to know such things? If we have no concern in 
them, then why hath Dionysius published these mysteries? Irenrzeus, 
Lib. 1r. c. 55, expresses a noble sentiment condemnatory of these 
writers of hierarchies: ‘There is nothing sound in what they 
say: they are mad; nor should we abandon Moses and the pro- 
phets to believe in them. Let them tell us the nature of things 
invisible; let them tell the number of the angels, and the ranks of 
the archangels; let them shew the mystery of the thrones, and 
explain the differences of dominations, princedoms, powers and 
virtues: but this they cannot tell us?" Whence it manifestly 
appears that such a subject was secret, unknown, unheard of, and 
as yet handled by no writer. Yet all these things are explained 
in the books of this Dionysius. Augustine, in his Enchiridion (ad 
Laurent.) c. 58, declares himself ignorant of the ranks of angels 
and their differences, what are thrones, what dominations, what 
principalities, what powers. ‘Let those," says he, “tell who can, 
provided they can prove what they say*.” We return the same 
answer to the papists. Dionysius, indeed, tells all these things, 
but gives no proofs. Besides, Gregory the Great gives a different 
description of the ranks of angels from this Dionysius; and so 
Bernard also (as Eckius confesses) Hom. 4. de Festo Michaelis. 
Now if this Dionysius had obtained such high credit, or his books 
held such great authority, these writers would never have ventured 
to differ from him. So far concerning the Celestial Hierarchy. 
Sixthly, in his book of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy he writes 
largely of temples, altars, holy places, the choir, and the placing of 
catechumens without the portals of the temple. Now there was 
[2 Non enim sunt magis idonei hi quam scripture, nee relinquentes nos 
eloquia Domini, et Moysem, et reliquos prophetas qui veritatem preeconia- 
verint, his credere oportet, sanum quidem nihil dicentibus, instabilia autem 
delirantibus.... Dicant nobis quee sit invisibilium natura, enarrent numerum 
angelorum et ordinem archangelorum, demonstrent thronorum sacramenta, 
et doceant diversitates dominationum, principatuum, potestatum atque virtu- 
tum. Sed hoc non habent dicere.—c. 54, pp. 212, 213, ed. Fevard. | 


[3 Dicant qui possunt, si tamen possunt probare quod dicunt: ego me 
ista ignorare confiteor.—p. 209. Lips. 1838.] 
97 


[ WHITAKER. | 


578 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


nothing of the kind in existence in those times when Dionysius 
lived. In that age, by reason of their tyrannous oppressors, the 
Christians were compelled to meet in hidden and concealed places, 
and there to hold their prayers and sermons. Besides, he men- 
tions monks, Hierarch. Ecclesiast. c. 8 Now the papists grant 
that Paul and Antony were the parents of the monks; and they 
flourished some ages after Dionysius the Areopagite. Certainly 
there were no monks in the times of the apostles. In his book of 
the Divine Names, c. 4?, he cites from Ignatius’ epistle to the 
Romans this very brief but very sweet sentence, ó éuds epus 
éoravpwrat, “my love is crucified.” Now Ignatius sent this 
epistle to the Romans when he was on his journey to Rome with 
the prospect of certain death, in the reign of Trajan, as we are 
informed by Eusebius in his Chronicon, and in his Ecclesiastical 
History, Lib. im. c. 36, and by Jerome in his Catalogue. But 
Methodius, in the Martyrdom of Dionysius, and Simeon Meta- 
phrastes, in his Life, write that Dionysius the Areopagite was slain 
in the reign of Domitian. In the end of his book of the Ecclesias- 
tical Hierarchy he calls Timothy his son, who nevertheless was his 
equal in authority, weight, learning, and every kind of dignity. 
In his seventh epistle, that to Polycarp?, he writes that he was in 
Egypt when that celebrated eclipse of the sun over the whole 
world took place, at the time that our Lord Jesus Christ suffered 
death upon the cross. Yet Origen, Tractat. 35* in Matth. de- 
nies that this was an eclipse of the sun, because it was then full 
moon, and an eclipse of the sun takes place only at the new moon. 
He says besides, that the darkness spoken of by Matthew, xxvii. 45, 
was not universal (for then some history would have mentioned it), 
but local and confined to the land of Judsa. Jerome', in his com- 


[1 j 8é reAovuévov dracdv bWndorépa ráfus,  Tdv povaxóv éorw iepa 
Siaxdopnois.—ut supra, p. 330.] 

[2 ypapes 86 kal 6 Oeios 'Lyvártos, 6 éuós pws éoravpwrat.—ibid. pp. 467, 
477.] : 

[3 dudorépm yap rére karà 'HAwovmoAw dpa mapóvre re kai avvearóre, 
mapabo£es TH 'HA(e rjv ZeMjvgv épmurroÜcav éopópev, ov yap nv avvóOov katpós. 
p.15 

[4 Quomodo ergo poterat fieri defectio solis, cum luna esset plena, et 
plenitudinem solis haberet?.... Àrbitror ergo, sicut cetera signa que facta 
sunt in passione ipsius, in Hierusalem tantummodo facta sunt, sic et tenebre 
tantummodo super omnem terram Judzam sunt factze usque ad horam nonam. 
—Origen. Opp. part. 1t. p. 128. Paris 1619.] 

[5 Videturque mihi clarissimum lumen mundi, hoc est luminare majus, 


XII. | | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 579 


mentary on Matthew, says that this was no eclipse, but that the 
sun wrapped in darkness withdrew his beams, and would not look 
upon so horrible a crime. If there had been such an eclipse, pro- 
fane authors would certainly have mentioned it. But the proba- 
bility is that, as Origen says, this darkness pervaded Judea only, 
as formerly Egypt. Erasmus® is of the same opinion, I am not 
solicitous about the point; but hence I draw an inference, that these 
fathers had either not seen these books, or did not ascribe so much 
to them as the papists claim in their behalf. 

Our countrymen, the Rhemists, in their annotations upon Acts i. 
cite a certain epistle of Dionysius to Timothy which is not to be 
found amongst those at present extant in Greek; for there are no 
more than ten epistles in the Greek copies: perhaps they would 
have this to be the eleventh. They say that a narrative is given 
in this epistle of the translation and assumption of the body of the 
blessed Virgin Mary: for Dionysius, as they affirm, writes that he 
and the twelve apostles were present at Mary’s death. Now how 
was this possible, when they had before this parted company and 
gone into different parts and climes of the world? He says that 
they all assembled by a miracle, except Thomas, who did not ar- 
rive till three days after the Virgin’s death. But these things can 
by no means be made to hang together. For the papists, as we 
read in the New Sacerdotale, part. r. p. 156, maintain that Mary 
eonceived in the 14th year of her age, bore her son in the 15th, 
and it is certain that she lived thirty-three years with Christ. She 
was, consequently, 47 years of age when Christ died and ascended. 
Now they say that she died 16 years after Christ's ascension, in 
the 63rd year of her age. She lived therefore 15, or at most 16 
years after Christ's ascension. But James, the brother of John, 
was put to death the third, or as some say the tenth year after 
Christ's ascension, in the reign of Claudius; and so say Genebrard 
in his Chronology, and Eusebius in his Chronicon. He died there- 
fore six years at least before the death of Mary, and could not be 
present at her departure, unless indeed he dropped from heaven 
specially to attend her funeral. Besides, Dionysius’ pretence that 


retraxisse radios suos, ne aut pendentem videret Dominum, aut impii blas- 
phemantes sua luce fruerentur.— Hieronym. Opp. T. 1v. col. 139. Paris. 1706.] 
[9 Indicat Origenes in nonnullis codicibus adjectum fuisse, tenebrze factze 
sunt super totam terram deficiente sole, quasi solis deliquium eas induxerit. 
Atque ita certe tradit epistola qus nomine Dionysii circumfertur, mihi 
Wevderiypados videtur.—p. 110. Basil. 1535.] 
37—2 


580 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


he was himself present is also false: for Dionysius was a senator 
of Athens in the 17th year after Christ's ascension, which was cer- 
tainly the year when Paul came to Athens. Mary therefore had 
died before Dionysius was converted by Paul to the christian faith. 
But this Dionysius, who is said to have been present at the death 
of Mary along with the apostles, seems to have been a most zealous 
adherent of the christian faith, and on familiar terms with the 
apostles. 

Lastly, even the papists themselves do not approve or receive 
all the traditions of Dionysius. For, in the first place, he testifies 
that Christians used in those times to receive the eucharist every 
day. Besides, he describes a public not a private, a whole and 
not a half-communion, ZZierarch. Eccles. c. 3; and records in the 
same place the reading of scripture and the publie prayers to have 
been made in the vulgar tongue. These points make against the 
papists. In the seventh chapter of his Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 
he relates a strange custom of the ancient church at funerals. He 
says they used to salute the corpse, and then pour oil upon it; 
which customs are not practised by the papists now. They do 
indeed diligently anoint the living, but bestow neither oil nor 
salutations upon the dead. Bellarmine says that, although Luther 
and Calvin reject these books, yet the circumstance of their being 
quoted by Gregory the great in his Homily upon the hundred 
sheep, and by others, proves that they are neither modern nor 
despicable. I answer: I confess that they are not modern nor 
despicable; but the question is, whether they are the work of 
Dionysius the disciple of Paul. Gregory the great, although he 
mentions them, yet does not follow them in all things. Besides, 
Athanasius, Jerome, Chrysostom, Augustine, and other fathers 
older than Gregory, make no mention of these books. There is 
no reason why we should not suppose that these books were pub- 
lished before Gregory, who gained the place and reputation of a 
great doctor of the church after six hundred years had elapsed 
from the time of Christ. But Bellarmine could produce or name 
no author near the apostolic age, who hath mentioned these books ; 
a sufficient evidence that they were unheard of in the more ancient 
times, and are no genuine production of the Areopagite!. 

In the fifth place, he produces Porvcanr, a distinguished and 


[1 See a curious discussion of the authenticity of these books in Hakewill's 
Apologie (Lond. 1635.) Lib. v. pp. 208—226, between Hakewill and Good- 
man, bishop of Gloucester.] 


X11. | | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 581 


constant Christian, adorned with the illustrious crown of martyrdom. 
Eusebius, Lib. v. c. 20, relates of him out of Irenzeus, that he was 
wont to repeat by heart many things which he had heard from the 
apostles concerning our Lord, and which he had written not on 
paper, but in his heart. I answer, in the first place: The passage 
in Eusebius should be referred to. Irenzeus is writing against a 
certain heretic Florinus, who maintained that evil beings were 
created such by God. Then he desires him to remember Polycarp, 
the outlines and substance of whose teaching he recalls to his mind. 
For Florinus had been with Polycarp, and Irenzus also, in his 
youth, had heard Polycarp discoursing concerning the faith; and 
he goes on to speak of the place where Polycarp used to relate 
to the people many things about Christ, his miracles and his doc- 
trine which he had heard from those who had seen Christ, and 
which he had traced not on paper but on his heart? Now why is 
all this alleged ? Does it follow that because Polycarp said many 
things which he had heard from eye-witnesses, and because Irenzus 
engraved them upon his heart, therefore these things are not 
written, or unwritten traditions are necessary to salvation? His 
mention of eye-witnesses does not prove that the same things as 
he related were not written, but only that he wished to win the 
greater credit for what he said by this circumstance. Nor does 
the fact of Irenzus having inscribed these lessons upon his heart, 
prove that they could not have been written in books; but only 
that he, though a boy, had engraved the words of Polycarp so 
deeply upon his mind, that the memory of them remained per- 
petually fixed therein. Ought not all sound doctrine to be imprinted 
upon our minds, even though the sacred books deliver it also ? 
Secondly, Irenzeus in that same place testifies that all the things 
which Polycarp used to relate from memory concerning Christ 
were “accordant with the scriptures,” cvpqwva Tais ypadats. 
Let the papists introduce such traditions, and no others, and we 
will receive them willingly. But Bellarmine, in order to gain 


Ca ^ , .- 
[2 dere pe SvvacOar eimeiv kai rov rÓmov ev à kaÜe(ópevos OwXéyero . . . . kal 
j 8 Ne a > ^ \ A ^ M 1 Nc y , A € 
ras Stade§ers as émoweiro mpós Td mAijÜos, kai THY karà Iwavyvoy avvavagTpoQv as 
> , M ^ ^ ^ 
annyyedXe, kat THY peTa TOY Aouróv TAY éopakórov Tov Koptov: Kal às áreuvnuó- 
^ ^ a 
veve Tovs Adyous a’Tady, kai mept Tod Kupíov ríva 9v à map  ékeivov axnkdet, kal 
^ , ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 
mept Tov Suvapewy avro), kai mept ts OiQagkaAMas, os Tapa avromróv Ths Cwhs 
, pt 7! > 
^ rf ^ ^ 
Tov Adyou mapernhas 6 IIoAokapmos ámyyyeXXe mávra cippava rais ypapais.— 
T. rr. p. 100.] 
2 ^ » > -^ ^ 
[3 ratra....iKovoy, vrouygpariópevos abrà ovK év xáprg, GAN év» TH éu$j 


xapdia.—ibid. ] 


582 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cu. 


something from this passage, insists that Irenzus’ saying that these 
things were consonant to scripture, is not inconsistent with their 
not being written. For it is not, says he, everything that is con- 
sonant to scripture, that can immediately be proved by scripture; 
for all truth is consonant to scripture, but all truth is not contained 
in scripture, nor can be proved by it. This he wishes to be taken 
as an answer to Chemnitzius. I answer: Firstly, that Irensus in 
this place indicates plainly enough what he means by styling these 
things consonant to scripture. He had to deal with the heretic 
Florinus, who, as we have already said, asserted that evil things 
were created by God. This was the heresy he wished to refute: 
now this may be most plainly refuted by scripture. Secondly, 
whatever is consonant with scripture, may be proved by scripture: 
but there are many things not dissonant from scripture which 
cannot be proved by it. It is one thing to be consonant with 
scripture, and another to be not dissonant from it. That there is 
gold in the New Indies i$ not consonant with scripture, and yet is 
not dissonant from it. All truth that is consonant with scripture 
may be deduced from, and proved by scripture, because in ac- 
cordance with scripture. So Irenzus, Lib. 11. c. 47, says that “the 
parables are consonant with the plain expression.” Thirdly, I affirm 
that some popish traditions are not only not consonant with scrip- 
ture, but even altgether foreign from scripture; such as the tra- 
ditions of purgatory, indulgences, the mass, sacrifice for the dead, 
worship of images, and the merit of good works. 

I come now to Justtn Martyr, whom Bellarmine next objects 
to us. He brings against us many passages from his second 
apology: in the first place, that the Christians used then to meet 
upon the Lord’s day!; next, that they mixed water with the wine 
in the eucharist?. I answer: As to the former tradition, I say 
that it may be proved by scripture, and therefore is no unwritten 
tradition. As to the second, I confess that there was formerly such 
a custom, but maintain that it was a matter of no importance. It is 
no great matter if water be mixed with strong wine, such as the 
wine of those countries was, provided the substance of wine be not 
destroyed. Bellarmine then sets forth another tradition out of 
Justin; that the eucharist is to be given to none but baptized per- 


[1 rjv 8é rod 5jAiov 5juépav kow; mávres THY ovvéAevouv moivpe0a.—p. 99. 
Paris. 1636. ] 
[2 mpoodépera TQ. mpoearóri rà» adeApay apros kal mornpioy datos kai 


kpáparos.—p. 97. ibid.] 


v1. ] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 583 


sons. But I affirm that this may be gathered from. scripture. 
However, he presses still more the following words of Justin: ** The 
day after Saturday, which is Sunday, he appeared to his apostles and 
disciples, and delivered to them these things which we submit also 
to your consideration?" &c. I answer: In the first place, these words 
are of no service to the popish traditions. For Justin only says, 
that Christ rose on Sunday, which the scriptures tell us also; and 
that he taught his apostles those things which Justin wrote in this 
book, and submitted to the consideration of Caesar Antoninus. Now 
these are no other than we read delivered in the scriptures. For 
in this Apology Justin gives the emperor an account of the chris- 
tian religion, wherein the papists have not been able to find any 
of their traditions. Secondly, I would not have them trust too 
much to Justin’s traditions. For, in his Dialogue with Trypho, he 
keenly defends the error of the Chiliasts on the plea of apostolical 
tradition, and he hath some similar traditions which the papists at 
the present day do not own. There is, besides, a small book in 
Greek, bearing Justin’s name, with the title Zytnpata  'Avarykata, 
wherein he recites several traditions; but it is no genuine piece 
of Justin'sí, For in Quest. 115, it mentions lrenzus, and in 
Queest. 82, Origen, neither of whom could possibly have been 
known to him. Besides, it speaks also of the Manicheans, who 
arose some centuries after Justin. Finally, it is a very strong 
objection against the authority of this book, that it is not noticed 
by either Jerome or Eusebius. 

InEN:EUS comes next to Justin. Bellarmine says that many 
noble testimonies might be cited from him, namely, from Lib. m1. 
c. 2, 3, 4, where Irenzus writes that there is no more convenient 
way of arriving at the truth than by consulting those churches 
wherein there is a succession of bishops from the apostles. I 
answer: I confess that Irensus appeals from the scriptures to the 
churches and apostolical traditions. Moreover, he writes that 
heretics are to be refuted not by scripture, but by tradition. 
Nevertheless our defence is no way prejudiced by Irenzus. We 
must see what the reason was, on account of which Irenzus spoke 
thus; and when we have got a clear view of this, we shall readily 
understand that these statements yield little or no assistance to the 


[3 kai TH pera Tj» Kpovixyy, iris eotlv nAlov rjuépa, havels rote. drrooTóAots 
avro) kai padnrais edidake tradra, dmep eis ériokxew kal tiv aveddxapev. p. 99.] 

[4 La Croze ascribes this piece to Diodorus Tarsensis. Thesaur. Epist. 11. 
p. 280.] 


584 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


papists. The reason why he appealed from scripture to apostolical 
traditions, and said that heretics were not to be refuted by scripture, 
was, because he disputed against heretics who slanderously con- 
tended that the scriptures were not perfect; yea, who lacerated, 
despised, corrupted, and denied them; who would not allow them- 
selves to be pressed by their authority, but clave to their traditions, 
as the papists do now! He rightly determines that it is not pos- 
sible to dispute against such persons out of scripture. Read the 
second chapter of the third book. From that chapter it is appa- 
rent that those heretics were precisely similar to our papists: for 
they rejected the scriptures, firstly, because they were obscure; 
secondly, because they had various meanings and might be diversely 
understood; thirdly, because tradition was prior to scripture; 
fourthly, because the scriptures cannot be understood without tra- 
ditions. For all these reasons they said that we should dispute 
rather out of tradition than out of scripture; in all which points 
the papists at the present day hold the same as they did: on 
which account, Irenzeus appeals to the apostolical churches, and 
explains in e. 3, the grounds of this proceeding; namely, because, 
if the apostles had delivered any such traditions as the heretics 
pretended, they would doubtless have delivered them to those 
churches wherein they themselves had taught® And accordingly 
he says, c. 3: * When we bring forward our succession, we confound 
the hereties?." He brings forward in that place the succession of 
the Roman church, because it was the most famous at that time. 
But Bellarmine alleges some words from c. 4, to the effect that 
the apostles had laid up in the church, “as in a rich repository, in 
full abundance, all things which appertain to the truth, that every 
one that chose might thence derive the water of hfe*" I answer: 


[| Cum enim ex scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur 
ipsarum scripturarum, quasi non recte habeant, neque sint ex auctoritate, et 
quia varie sint dicte, et quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his qui 
nesciant traditionem: non enim per literas traditam illam, sed per vivam 
vocem.—-p. 230. ed. Fevard.] 

[? Etenim si recondita mysteria scissent apostoli, quee seorsim et latenter 
ab reliquis perfectos docebant, his vel maxime traderent ea quibus etiam 
ipsas ecclesias committebant.—p. 232.] 

[3 Fidem, per successiones episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos, in- 
dicantes, confundimus omnes eos qui....praeterquam oportet colligunt.— 
ibid. B.] 

[* Non oportet adhue queerere apud alios veritatem quam facile est ab 
ecclesia sumere, cum apostoli, quasi in depositorium dives, plenissime in eam 


XII. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 585 


We also concede this. But it is inconclusive arguing to say, They 
bestowed all upon the church; therefore they did not write all. 
Next he objects these words out of the same chapter: “If the 
apostles had not left us the scriptures, ought we not to follow that 
order of tradition which they delivered to those to whom they 
committed the churches®?” I answer: Surely we ought. But 
where is the force of this argument? Though the apostles had 
written nothing, we ought to follow the order of tradition; there- 
fore the apostles have not written all that is sufficient for faith and 
salvation! In that chapter also Irenzus mentions certain barbarous 
nations which served God and cultivated religion without the 
scripture. Had then no churches scriptures, or do the scriptures 
not contain the entire doctrine of Christianity ? This conclusion 
does not follow. Bellarmine next alleges what Irenzus says, 
Lib. 1v. c. 45,9 that the gift of truth was delivered to the churches 
along with the succession of bishops from the apostles. I answer: 
Can it be probably concluded from this, that all necessary things 
are not written? By no means. With the scriptures the apostles 
delivered the truth to the churches; and those apostles who wrote 
nothing, delivered to the churches no other truth than that which 
is contained in the scriptures. Yet hence the papists may under- 
stand that succession is of no importance without “the gift of 
truth.” Furthermore, our opponents should not lay too much 
stress upon lrensus, who was certainly deceived in the matter of 
tradition. For Eusebius, Lib. mr. c. 39, says that he was a 
Chiliast. This may be proved from Lib. v. c. 28. And Lib. m. 
c. 99, Irenzeus writes that Christ lived forty years; which he 
affirms that he received by tradition not only from John, but from 
the other apostles also. Now this may be refuted by scripture ; 
and, in fact, Epiphanius, Her. 78, confutes this opinion. And 
Lib. mn. c. 47," Iren;us writes, that faith and hope remain in the 
life to come, which the scriptures expressly deny. 


contulerint omnia quz sint veritatis; uti omnis quicunque velit, sumat ex ea 
potum vitze.—p. 242.] 

[^ Quid autem? si neque apostoli quidem scripturas reliquissent nobis, 
nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis, quam tradiderunt iis quibus com- 
mittebant ecclesias ?—ibid.] 

[ Quapropter eis qui in ecclesia sint presbyteris obaudire oportet, his 
qui successionem habent ab apostolis, sicut ostendimus, qui cum episcopatus 
suecessione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum Patris acceperunt. 
—c. 43, pp. 381, 382.] 

[7 Sicut et apostolus dixit, reliquis partibus destructis, heec tune perseve- 


586 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


It follows that we go through the remaining supporters and 
patrons of traditions; the next of whom is CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS. 
He, as quoted by Eusebius, Lib. vr. c. 11, says! that he was obliged 
to write a book concerning Easter, and to mention therein the tra- 
ditions which he received from the presbyters, the successors of the 
apostles. I answer, that that book is not now extant, and conse- 
quently, that it is uncertain what traditions he therein related. 
Secondly, it may well be supposed that it was traditions about 
Easter, or some similar to these, that were treated of in that book, 
traditions of no great importance, and no way necessary to salvation. 
Thirdly, I affirm that this Clemens was not entirely orthodox, 
having, as Eusebius testifies, shewn too great a disposition to make 
use of apocryphal pieces. In the first book of his Stromata he 
says that the labourer, who is sent into the Lord's harvest, hath a 
double husbandry, “ written and unwritten,” (éyypadov and 
aypadov). In the same book he says that Christ taught only 
during one year, although it be manifest from the gospels that his 
teaching lasted three years and upwards. In the same book he 
writes also that the Gentiles were saved by their philosophy. In 
the second book of the Stromata he hath laid the foundations of the 
Nestorian heresy, as his translator Hervetus hath noted in the mar- 
gin. And in the same book he says that no one was saved before 
Christ. In his third book he says that Christ did not truly hunger 
or truly thirst, but only seemed to be subject to hunger and thirst. 
In the sixth book he says that Christ and the apostles converted 
many to the faith in Hades by preaching to them. And in his 
Protreptical Discourse he makes ** Eve” denote allegorically plea- 
sure, and thus taught his disciple Origen to interpret scripture 
allegorically; from which source almost all the heresies, ancient 
and modern, have taken their rise. He wrote also, and taught 
that Christ is a creature, as Ruffinus tells us in the Apology for 
Origen. 

Next follows OniGEN, the auditor of Clemens. He tells us, in his 
Commentary upon the Romans, c. 6, that the baptism of infants is a 


rare, qu:e sunt fides, spes, et caritas. Semper enim fides, quse est ad magis- 
trum nostrum, permanet.—p. 203. c. The schoolmen solve the difficulty by 
determining that faith remains, quoad habitum, though not quoad ewercitium. 
They have other expedients indeed, but this seems the most plausible.] 

[! Kai év rà Aóye O6 abro)? TH mepl Tod macxa exBiacOjvar dpodoyet mpós 
TOY €raipwy, as érvxe mapa TeV dpxaíev mpeovrépov áknkoós mapaddces ypad? 
Tois peta ravra mapadovvat.—c. 13. T. 11. p. 182. ed. Heinich. ] 


x. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 587 


tradition2, I answer: That it is indeed a tradition, but a written 
tradition, and capable of easy proof from scripture. Bellarmine next 
gathers another testimony from the same father’s fifth Homily upon 
Numbers, where Origen says that many things are observed, the 
reason of which is not plain to all, as kneeling in prayer?. I answer: 
This is indeed a laudable tradition, but yet not a necessary one; for 
we read that some holy men have prayed standing. And Basil, de 
Spirit. S. c. 27, affirms that Christians used to pray erect, and not 
upon their knees, on Sundays, and from Easter to Whitsuntide. 
However, we need not defer much to Origen’s authority, who is a 
writer full of blemishes and errors. Many of the ancient fathers 
wrote against him, as Epiphanius, Theophilus of Alexandria, and 
Jerome, who calls his writings “poisoned.” Indeed, it is evident 
that there are many errors in his books. In his 35th Tractate 
upon Matthew, he writes that he learned from tradition that 
Christ’s countenance assumed diverse appearances according to the 
worthiness of the beholders*; and says that it was upon this account 
that Judas gave a sign to the Jews, Matth. xxvi. For what need, 
says he, of a sign, when the Jews saw Jesus’ face every day, if 
he had not a countenance that continually changed? Now this is 
a ridiculous tradition. 

Bellarmine next produces EusEBivs of Cesarea. He, in his 
Demonstratio Evangelica, Lib. 1. c. 8, confirms unwritten tradi- 
tions: for he says that the apostles delivered down some observ- 
ances in writing, and some orally*. I answer: That this testimony is 
clear enough, but unworthy of reception, because repugnant to 


[2 Pro hoe et ecclesia ab apostolis traditionem suscepit, etiam parvulis 
baptismum dare.—Origen. Opp. T. rv. p. 565. Paris. 1733.] 

[? Sed et in ecclesiasticis observationibus sunt nonnulla hujusmodi, que 
omnibus quidem facere necesse est, nec tamen eorum ratio omnibus patet. 
Nam quod, verbi gratia, genua flectimus orantes....non facile cuiquam puto 
ratione compertum.—T. 11. p. 284.] 

[4 Venit ergo talis traditio ad nos de eo, quoniam non solum dus form:e 
in eo fuerunt, una quidem secundum quam omnes eum videbant, altera autem 
secundum quam transfiguratus est coram discipulis in monte....Sed etiam 
unicuique apparebat secundum quod dignus fuerat.—T. ur. p. 906.] 

[5 of d€ ye avro? uaÜnral, rH ro) Oi0ackdNov veónart, KaTaddAndov rais r&v 
mOAXv dkoais Trovovpevor Tijv SidacKadiay, doa pev are viv Ew SiaBeBnkdor mpós 
Tov tedelov diSacKkadov mapryyyeXro, raUra rois oto:s Te xopeiv TapediOov: daa Oe 
Tois €re Tas Wuxas eumabéor kal Üepameías Seopévors éappó(ew. omeAápBlavov, 
Tavta Gvykarióvres TH TOY mÀeióvov aoOeveia, rà pev Sid ypapparoy, rà Se Oe 


aypapev Oecuav QvAárrew mrapedidocay.— p. 29. Paris. 1628.] 


588 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


scripture. The same author says in the same place, that Christ did 
not deliver all things to all persons, but reserved some points of 
greater excellence for the perfect, and that the apostles also pro- 
ceeded in the same manner. Irenseus gives a far different and 
sounder determination, Lib. nur. c. 15. And we read that the apo- 
stles made known the whole counsel of God to all the churches, and 
concealed nothing that was necessary from any one. Besides, it is 
absurd to suppose that the traditions pretended by the papists are 
so excellent and sublime as not to be communicated to everybody. 
For if we would judge aright, we must needs confess that much more 
perfect and excellent matters may be found in scripture. Besides, 
what that same author writes in the same place, of two ways of liv- 
ing amongst christian men, is a mere fiction. 

In the next place follows ATHaNAsivs. In the treatise which he 
wrote in defence of the decrees of the Nicene Council against 
Eusebius of Nicomedia, he says, that * that doctrine was delivered 
down from hand to hand from fathers to fathers!" I answer: That 
Athanasius speaks of the Homoüsion, which he proves to be no new 
term, or then first invented by the Nicene fathers, but acknowledged 
and used by the more ancient fathers also. But does it hence fol- 
low that the same term may not be justified out of the scriptures 
too? By no means. For it was in the scriptures that these fathers 
learned to use it. We dispute not about words, but the sense of 
words, the dogma, the doctrine which they convey. We reject not 
certain words which are nowhere found in scripture, provided they 
bear no meaning foreign from scripture. Such are the terms, 
* Trinity," * person," ‘ hypostasis," ‘ consubstantial,” and others 
of that sort. But new dogmas, whereof the scriptures say nothing, 
we do reject, and maintain that no article of faith is necessary which 
is not delivered in the scriptures. 

Bellarmine proceeds, and objects to us Basix in the next place. 
He writes thus, De Spirit. S. c. 27: “Those things which we 
observe and teach wé have received partly from the written teach- 
ing, and partly delivered to us in a mystery from the tradition of 
the apostles?," He remarks in the same place, that “both these 


[1 tod jueis pev ék marépov els marépas OuaBeBnkévau Tiv Tovavtny Ouávotav 
amoderxvvonev.— Athan. Opp. T. 1. p. 233. Paris. 1698. ] 

[2 róv ev TH ékkNgaía medvAaypévov Soypatev Kal kypvypárov Td uv EK TIS 
eyypapou 8i9ackaMas €xouev, rà 8€ ék THs THY dmoarÓAov Trapaddcews Siadobévra 
ny év pvotnpio -mapedekapeba: ámep dudórepa rjv abr]v loXUv exer mpós THY 
eva éBeuay.—Basil. Opp. T. m1. 210. Paris. 1618.] 


xu. | | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 589 


have equal force to piety.” He hath similar sentiments in c. 29.3 
The papists press with extraordinary earnestness these words and 
the passage adduced; and indeed they do seem to establish and 
sanction the decree of the council of Trent, wherein traditions are 
made equal to scripture. But I answer: Firstly, that it may be 
doubted whether these are the true and genuine words of. Basil. 
Nor are we the first that have called this matter in question; 
since Erasmus, an acute judge of ancient writings, hath passed the 
same judgment in the preface? to his version of Basil, observing 
that he perceived a change of style from the middle of the book 
and onward.  Damascene, indeed, in his first oration upon the 
Worship of Images, recites these words as Basil’s: but we do not 
account his opinion of much consequence, since he came too late in 
point of time, and was excessively given to traditions; and this book 
of his is of no sort of authority. Secondly, if these be genuine 
words of Basil, then he is at variance with himself. For he else- 
where teaches that all things necessary to salvation may be found 
in scripture, and that the scriptures contain a full and perfect body 
of teaching; as will hereafter appear manifestly, when we come to 
propose the arguments upon our side. Thirdly, it is certain that 
Basil was sometimes. too much addicted to traditions, and hence 
sometimes fell into mistakes. This may be plainly perceived from 
his Homily upon Christ's Nativity®, where he writes, that the Zach- 
arias mentioned in Matth. xxii. 35, was the father of John the 
Baptist, and was slain by the Jews for having placed Mary the 
mother of Christ amongst the virgins after she had borne a son, 

(3 dmocrolukóv S€ ofua kal rd rais dypapois mapa8ócect mrapapévew.—ibid. 
ave 
E [4 oe in his Dedicatory Epistle. His words are: Postquam dimidium 
operis absolveram citra tedium, visa est mihi phrasis alium referre parentem, 
aliumque spirare genium: interdum ad tragicum cothurnum intumescebat 
oratio, rursus ad vulgarem sermonem subsidebat, interdum subinane quiddam 
habere videbatur ....adhuc subinde digrediebatur ab instituto, nec satis con- 
cinne redibat a digressione. Postremo multa videbantur admisceri, quze non 
admodum facerent ad id quod agitur; quzdam etiam repetuntur oblivione 
verius quam judieio. Quum Basilius ubique sit sanus, simplex, et candidus, 
sibi constans, atque etiam instans, nunquam ab eo quod agitur excurrens 
temere, nunquam divinis mysteriis admiscens philosophiam mundanam, nisi 
per adversarios coactus, idque contemptim.—Cf. Stillingfleet. Ration. Ac- 
count. P. 1. c. 8. Works, Vol. 1v. p. 235. Lond. 1709.] 

[5 dndot 8€ kai 5j xarà Tov Zaxapíav ioropia, dre péxpt mavros mapbévos 7 
Mapia: Adyos yap ris eat Kal obros ex mapaddceas els nuas advypevos. k. T. À.— 


T. 1- p. 590] 


590 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cu. 


which the Jews could by no means tolerate. On this account he 
says that the Jews rushed upon him and slew him between the 
temple and the altar. This he calls an old tradition, Aovyov €x 
Tapacocews adirypévov. I suppose he took it from Origen upon 
Matth. xxii,! and Origen from I know not whom. However, we 
may see from Chrysostom and Jerome, what opinion we should 
form of this tradition. Chrysostom affirms that the person here 
meant was the son of Jehoiada, of whom we read, 2 Chron. xxiv. 
20, 21. And Jerome says, that what we are told about the 
father of John Baptist is merely apocryphal, and rejected as 
easily as it is asserted, along with all the other things which rest 
upon no scriptural foundation. From which words it appears 
plainly what value is to be assigned to Basil’s traditions, which are 
both condemned by ancient fathers and easily refuted by reason. 
Fourthly, I come to Basil’s actual words: he says, that the gospel 
without unwritten tradition hath no force, but is a mere name, 
Widov óvoua. If he meant that it is of no avail without preach- 
ing and interpretation, he would have said something; but he is 
speaking of certain rites and ceremonies not contained in scripture, 
which he there enumerates, and without which he pronounces the 
gospel to be of no avail. If Basil were now to rise from the dead, 
he would doubtless refuse to acknowledge such a sentiment, which 
deservedly merits to be exploded and condemned by all good Chris- 
tians. However, let us see what sort of things are these traditions, 
so excellent, so necessary, so divine, and without which the gospel 
would lose all its efficacy: let us judge whether they possess 
indeed so much value and importance. 

The first tradition which he proposes is the sign of the cross: 
for he says that those who have believed in Christ should be signed 
with the symbol of the cross, TQ Tv7« ToU c'TavpoU ToUs yATI- 
korae kataonuaivecOa. I acknowledge this to be an ancient 
ceremony, used from almost the earliest times of the christian 
church and religion, and used for this reason; that Christians, who 
then lived in the midst of pagans and men most hostile to the faith 
of Christ, might by every means declare and publicly testify that. 
they were Christians; of doing which they supposed that there was 
no more convenient means than signing themselves with this out- 
ward symbol of the cross. Afterwards this sign was applied to 
other purposes, wherein there was more of superstition than of 


[! Tract. xxv. cf. Huet, Origeniana. Lib. 1. Q. iv. p. 66.] 


X11. | | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 591 


religion. For what? are we to think that piety and religion con- 
sist in outward things? Surely not.  **But the flesh is signed that 
the soul may be protected," says Tertullian. On the contrary, it 
is by faith, not by the cross, that the soul should be protected. 
The ancients, indeed, thought they were protected by this sign 
against evil demons; but this had its origin in the Montanistic 
heresy. We read, however, in history, that many demons were 
put to flight by this sign, as is narrated in the case of Julian the 
apostate. While he was celebrating some horrible rites, and a crowd 
of demons had collected in the place where those impious ceremonies 
were being performed, Julian, forgetting himself in his fright, 
signed himself with the cross, as he used to do when he was a 
Christian ; whereupon forthwith all the devils betake themselves 
to flight. I am aware that these and similar accounts are delivered 
down to us in history. Meanwhile this should be deeply imprinted 
upon the minds of us all, that the devil is a cunning, crafty, versa- 
tile, deceitful and lying impostor. He pretends therefore to fear 
the sign of the cross, in order to lead us to place more confidence in 
that outward sign than in Christ crucified himself. But we shall 
have to speak elsewhere of the sign of the cross. 

Another of Basil's traditions is, that we should turn to the east 
when we pray; «pos avaroAde verpad0at Kata THv Tpocevyny. 
I answer: This ceremony is of no importance whatsoever. Can we 
think that the apostles were anxious about such a matter as what 
point of the compass men should turn towards in their prayers ? 
Does not God hear those who turn towards the south or west ? This 
is surely more suited to Jews than Christians. Eucherius, an 
ancient father, in his Commentary upon the books of Kings, Lib. rr. 
c, 58, writes piously, that no precept directs us how to place our 
body in prayer, “provided only the mind be present with God,” 
and waiting upon him. Socrates, Lib. v. c. 22, writes that the An- 
tiochenes used to turn towards the west in their prayers, adopting a 
custom directly opposite to what Basil tells us was commanded by 
the apostles. Must the gospel be ruined, if this glorious tradition 
be taken away? But let us consider the reasons of this tradition 
broached by Basil. ‘When we pray," says he, “we look to- 
wards the east; but few of us know the reason why we do so. 
Now the reason is, because we seek our ancient country Para- 
dise, which God is said to have placed, in the garden of Eden, 
towards the sun's rising." I answer: Is it then that earthly para- 
dise in which Adam was placed, that we seek for? Nay, we 
seek another country, in the heavens, where there is neither east 


592 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


nor west. This, therefore, was a reason absolutely ridiculous and 
unworthy of Basil. 

Basil’s third tradition relates to the words of invocation, when 
the bread and wine are exhibited in the eucharist. I answer: The 
papists themselves do not retain this form of invocation, nor under- 
stand any thing of its nature. 

Fourthly, Basil says: * We bless the water of baptism.” I 
answer: What does this mean? Did not Christ by his authority 
and commandment, and by his word, sanctify all water for baptism? 
Is not all pure elementary water sufficient for baptism even without 
this benediction ? Is not baptism valid performed in any water? 
We read in Acts vii. of the baptism of the eunuch: but neither 
there nor elsewhere in the sacred scriptures could we ever find 
a word of this sanctification of the water. Justin Martyr, in his 
second Apology, where he shews the manner and describes the form of 
baptism amongst the ancient Christians, makes no mention of bless- 
ing the water. We read in Eusebius, that Constantine always 
desired to be baptized in Jordan: but, I suppose, a whole river of 
running water could not be sanctified in this way. Chrysostom, 
(Hom. 25, in Joann.) writes excellently well, that Christ by his 
baptism sanctified all waters: but these men are wont to apply 
exorcisms to water, salt, bells, as if all the creatures were full of 
devils. Yet, although they require exorcisms, they dare not deny 
that it is a legitimate, entire, and true baptism, which is performed 
even in not sanctified water. 

Basil’s fifth tradition is like the preceding, namely, that the 
persons to be baptized should be dipped thrice, rois BawriCecOat, 
concerning which tradition we read also in the 50th canon of the 
apostles. I answer: Would the power of the gospel be impaired 
by the loss of this tradition? Who would say so? It is at least 
manifest that this tradition is neither apostolical nor necessary. 
For, in Acts ii, we read that three thousand men were baptized 
upon the day of Pentecost. So many persons could not be baptized 
on one day, if each were dipped three times. In the ancient and 
primitive church baptism was wont to be celebrated but twice in the - 
year, at Easter and Pentecost, and then a vast multitude of persons 
was baptized on one day. How great a labour would this have 
been, if they had used the trine immersion with each! Others, 
however, rather approve aspersion than immersion, as Cyprian, 
Epist. Lib. iv. Ep. 7. And Gregory, Epist. Lib. 1. Ep. 4, says that 
it makes no matter whether we use the trine or simple immersion. 

[! Opp. T. rv. 654. Eton. 1612.] 


xit. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 593 


Gratian, Dist. 4, de Consecr. C. de Trina, lays down the same 
thing. But the fourth council of Toledo, can. 5, prohibits that trine 
immersion: and, indeed, every one sees that even a single dip is 
attended with danger to a tender infant. The papists themselves do 
not now use a trine immersion, but a trine sprinkling, wherewith 
they maintain that baptism is completely performed. Now if it be 
an apostolic tradition that those who are baptized should be dipped 
thrice, they ought not to have made any change. 

Basil’s sixth tradition is that those who are baptized should 
acoraccecÓa. Tw Xaravq, renounce Satan. I reply, that this is 
perfectly true. But do we not “renounce” Satan, when we profess 
to believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ? 

From these instances we may judge of the rest. What? Are 
these the things without which the gospel will lose all its efficacy ? 
Nay, the papists themselves retain not all these traditions of Basil's. 
They do not dip, but sprinkle: they do not pray standing upon the 
Lord's day, as Basil here determines that we ought; for if we fol- 
low Basil, we ought to pray standing on all Sundays from Easter to 
Pentecost. This the papists do not observe, shewing therein that 
Basil is not to be listened to upon that matter. For Basil contends 
most earnestly for this tradition, and adduces three reasons in sup- 
port of the practice: 1. because Christ arose upon the Lord's 
day: 2. because we seek the things that are above, ra avw 
Cntovuuev. But we should do this always; and according to this 
reason, we should always pray standing: 3. because the eighth 
day is a symbol of the world to come; and therefore, says he, the 
church hath taught its nurslings to make their prayers in an erect 
posture, and that upon a necessary obligation. A similar decree 
was made in the first council of Nice, can. 20.? But a different 
custom hath now for a long time prevailed. The papists themselves 
have taught us by their own example to reject such traditions, For. 
these traditions of Basil's are either necessary, or they are not. If 
they be necessary, why do they not themselves observe them all? 
If they be not necessary, why do they press us with the authority 
of Basil? For either we should not be attacked, if they be un- 
necessary ; or they sin in not observing them, if they be necessary. 
Let them choose which they will. 

The same Dasil, however, in his Epitomized Definitions writes 
much better upon the subject of traditions. He says that there 
are some things enjoined in the scriptures, and some passed over 


[2 Labb. et Cossart. T. 11. col. 37.] 
38 


[ WHITAKER. ] 


594 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


in silence: wherein though he may seem to favour the papists, he 
yet lends them no sort of countenance. For he afterwards teaches 
us what sort of things are those which are not mentioned in them, 
namely, things left free, of a middle and indifferent nature. Of 
all these he says that this is the rule, this the canon; “all things 
are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient!” Now this 
rule must be understood of things indifferent. Whatever therefore 
is not set down in scripture must be looked upon as left free. This 
is our own opinion, that it is only things necessary, and not things 
indifferent, that are delivered in the scriptures. Since then we 
are disputing about things necessary, why do they press upon us 
Basil’s traditions, which, being unwritten, are, in his own judgment, 
indifferent and not necessary? Thus we see what opinion we 
should form of this place, than which the papists have none more 
urgent in favour of tradition. However, the Tridentine fathers 
would fain find sanction in this place for their decree, that traditions 
are to be received and reverenced with the same feelings of pious 
respect as the sacred books of the old and new Testaments them- 
selves. But I answer, that no one is so foolish as to believe that 
these traditions of Basil’s, just now set forth, have the same force 
and authority as holy scripture. Yet Bellarmine says, that they are 
of equal obligation, not indeed as to observance, but as to faith. So 
(he adds) some precepts of the Lord are greater than others, as, 
** Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart," &c.; and 
others of less importance, as that of avoiding idle words, Matth. xii. 
36. These (says he) oblige us equally in respect of faith, though 
not equally in respect of observance. |I answer: In the first place, 
the papists themselves have proved by their own example, that these 
traditions of Basil’s are in no way to be treated as equal to scripture; 
for they have abrogated some of them both in respect of faith and 
of observance. Now not the smallest precept delivered in scripture 
can be abrogated, not even that concerning idle words. Secondly, 
if they could with so much clearness and authority prove their 
traditions to be as true as the precepts of scripture, we would wil- 
lingly receive them as on the same footing with scripture: but, as we 
have already made appear, even they themselves do not certainly 
know their own traditions. 

Hitherto we have been engaged in answering objections from 


^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ M à 
[! rà uév éarw id rfe évroNjs Tod cod ev TH ayia ypaph QwaraXguéva, rà 0€ 
cecio7zTUéva ....Tepi Sé vOv ocecwmnuévov kavóva spiv é£éÜero ó dmóaToXos 
^ - , » 
IlaüXos cindy: mávra uoi €£earw, ad od arávra ouppéper.—T. 11. p. 524.] 


XII. | | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 595 


the fathers, and these matters have delayed me, though in haste 
to come to the arguments on our side. Yet there are still some 
testimonies remaining, which can by no means be passed over. 

In the next place, Bellarmine brings NAZzIANZENE into the field 
against us; who, in his first Invective against Julian, declares that 
he admired the doctrine of the church, but especially the forms 
which the church had received by tradition and preserved?. I 
answer: Nazianzene by the word tuzous in that place means either 
the sacraments, which were indeed administered with the utmost 
sanctity and reverence, or some other rites and ceremonies which 
christian men used in the administration of the sacraments. But the 
other ceremonies which he mentions were free, not necessary, as the 
manner of singing, imposing penance, and such like. These were 
useful, and not to be blamed, but yet not absolutely necessary. 
They are consequently irrelevant to the present question, because 
our dispute is only about things necessary. Besides, even those 
ceremonies have certain rules in scripture, to which they must be 
squared and made conformable. 

Next follows Curysostom, who, upon 2 Thess. ii 15, com- 
menting upon the words, “hold the traditions," drops some 
expressions favourable to tradition.  * Hence," says he, “it is 
plain that the apostles did not deliver everything in epistles, but 
many things also without writing?." I answer: Unless those many 
things of which Chrysostom speaks be founded upon the autho- 
rity of scripture, he contradicts himself, as shall afterwards be 
made clear in the defence of our side. But Chrysostom says that 
both these classes are equally deserving of credit, ouotes a£i7io 7a. 
And afterwards he says, “It is a tradition; let that suffice." I 
answer: It was an inconsiderate word, and unworthy of so great a 
father. Must whatever is obtruded on us under the name of a 
tradition be immediately received? Nay, the apostle tells us to 
‘try the spirits," and to “prove all things." Theophylact and 
Ciicumenius agree with him; but it is not necessary to answer them. 
The same Chrysostom also in his third Homily upon the Philip- 

[2 ópàv yap Tov nyérepov Adyov uéyav pev óvra rois Séypaow.... ere 0€ peilo 
kai yvepuioTrepov trois mapadedopévors kai eis ró0e rernpnpuévows TUTOLS Ths éeKKAN- 


cías, tva pndé TovTo dkaxovpyntov pévy, TL urxavárai.— Greg. Naz. Opp. T. 1 
p. 101. Colon. 1690.) 


[3 évreüOev OfXov Ste ov mávra Ov emiotoAns mwapedidocay, dAAà TOA kai 
aypadws: ópoíes kdkeiva kai ravrà eotiv d£iómws ra, Gave kai THY Tapadoow Tis 
exkAnoias dfiómiarov jyopeÓa. mapadocis éott, pndév mAéov (ore. — Chrysost. 
Comm. T. vr. p. 386. Paris. 1633.] 

38—2 


596 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


pians! and in his sixty-ninth Homily to the people of Antioch, 
declares that the apostles sanctioned the mentioning of the dead in 
the celebration of the holy mysteries; which he also affirms to be 
salutary to the departed. I answer: I do not acknowledge that 
tradition, and have no doubt that, if the prayers of the living were 
so useful and salutary for the dead, scripture would have mentioned 
and even enjoined them. However, Chrysostom is scarce consistent 
with himself in this place. He says in a previous passage, that 
those who die in their sins are not to be helped by prayers, but 
perpetually mourned over. Afterwards, nevertheless, he pronounces 
that prayers are of great avail to these persons; adding, however, 
that he speaks only of such as die in the faith, zepi tw ev mioTei 
vapeAÜOovreov. But how is it possible that one should die in faith, 
and yet die in sins? For all their sins are remitted to those who 
die in faith. 

In the next place Bellarmine objects TnEoPnrLvs of Alexandria. 
He in his first and third Lib. Paschal. says that the laws of fasting 
are apostolic. I answer: This was indeed an excellently learned 
writer, who refuted the Anthropomorphites; and yet he was a bitter 
enemy of Chrysostom, a person of the utmost sanctity and integrity, 
whom he ceased not from persecuting until he had glutted his 
hatred, and driven that most worthy prelate into exile. But to 
come to the question: I answer, in the first place, that those laws 
of fasting were not imposed by the apostles, but by the heretic 
Montanus. So Eusebius testifies, Lib. v. c. 18. — * This," says he, 
(meaning Montanus), **is the person who prescribed laws for fasting,” 
o vgoetas vouoOergoas. These laws, therefore, are heretical, not 
apostolieal, being instituted by Montanus, and not derived from the 
apostles. Secondly, I say, that the rule of fasting prescribed by 
this Theophilus is such as the papists themselves do not observe. 
He would have us, when we fast, abstain not only from flesh, but 
from wine?: the papists abstain from flesh indeed, but in the 
meanwhile allow other dainties, and as large a quantity of wine as 
you please to fast on. 

Next follows Cyrrit of Jerusalem, whom Bellarmine declares to 
handle nothing else in his Catechetics but unwritten rites in the 
celebration of the saeraments. I answer: He produces however no 
traditions from this author, nor can he produce many. There are 


[! Ibid. p. 33.] 
[? Qui autem legum precepta custodiunt, ignorant vinum in jejuniis.— 
Ap. Bibl. PP. T. v. p. 855. Lugdun. 1677.] 


XL. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 597 


indeed a few, but those of no great importance. The book itself 
appeared in Greek only a few years ago, but seems quite worthy 
of Cyril: it is marked by singular knowledge, and piety and 
prudence. Let them, if they can, produce from him any traditions 
opposed to us. How far he is from approving unwritten traditions, 
he shews plainly in the fourth Catechesis, where he writes expressly, 
that in things appertaining to faith and religion nothing, however 
small, is to be established without the authority of scripture. His 
words are, dec wept Twv Ociwy kai ayiwy TIS TicTEws pyeTNpiwy 
NOE TO TUXOV avev Twv Üstev mapadtoocbat ypapev. The cause, 
then, of the popish traditions, which rest upon no testimonies of scrip- 
ture, is lost. But Cyril adds further, that our faith must be proved by 
scripture, and from no other source: 7 cwr)pia THS TITTEWS 9AGV 
ovk €£ evpeatXoryías, AAN e£ azoQetzews TMV Üetov eoi ypadQov. 

Next follows another Cvyngir, namely of Alexandria, who in his 
sixth book against Julian the Apostate relates many things concern- 
ing the use of the image of the cross. I answer: We have already 
spoken of this tradition. It is not surprising that he should speak 
copiously upon this subject against Julian the Apostate; since the 
Christians of those times were wont to use this sign amongst the hea- 
then as the banner of their profession. Meanwhile he defends the per- 
fection of the scriptures, as shall be proved hereafter.— But Bellar- 
mine hath omitted the testimony of this Cyril in his printed edition. 

Next comes EPrenawius, whom they make a great patron of 
traditions. He tells us, in Heres. 75,3 and 61 and 63, speaking 
against the Apostolic, that “we cannot take everything from the 
scriptures.” And Bellarmine observes that the heretics (meaning 
us) have no answer to this but blasphemy. I answer: What 
blasphemy is it to say that Epiphanius delighted more in traditions 
than he ought, yea, even in those genealogies which the apostle 
condemns? Surely he that says this does no injury to Epipha- 
nius: for the truth of this may be proved by such an instance 
as occurs in Heres. 55, where he affirms that he knew by tradition 
who was the father of Daniel, and who of Elijah the prophet*, and 
how old Lazarus was when Christ raised him from the dead*. 


[3 Heres. Ixxv. $. 6. p. 910. 1xi. 6. p. 511. T. 1. ed. Petav. The latter is 
the most important: od yàp mávra amd ths Óeías ypads Ovvara. AapBaveo Oat. 
did rà £v ev ypadais, rà 8€ ev mapaddcer mapedaxay oi ayiov amdarodo.. | 

[4 Heer. lv. $. 3. p. 470.] 

[5 Heres. Ixvi. $. 34. p. 652: adda kai ev mapaddceow eÜpouev, Ort rpiákovra 
éràv nv róre 6 Aá(apos, Ore éyjyepra:.] 


598 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


However, my first reply is, that those things which Epipbanius 
says cannot be derived from scripture, are either indifferent and 
not necessary, as pertaining only to the external polity of the 
church, or else Epiphanius is inconsistent with himself; for he says 
elsewhere, that all things necessary are delivered in the scriptures. 
Secondly, I say that those traditions which he styles apostolic have 
been long since abrogated and disused by the papists. Why then 
do they press us so urgently with the authority of this father, 
when they themselves have long ago exploded his traditions? For 
in Heres. 51, he says that the wise men spoken of in Matth. ii., 
came two years after the birth of Christ. Now the fathers have 
refuted this opinion, nor do the papists maintain it. The same 
author tells us, Heres. 80, that it is a tradition that men should 
nourish beards!. Doubtless a noble one! Yet the papists neglect 
this tradition, their clergy being all shaven and beardless. Thirdly, 
as to the passage which Bellarmine adduces from Heres. 61, it 
may indeed be perceived from it that Epiphanius approved of some 
traditions as apostolical, but yet not that he was so pertinacious 
a maintainer of them as the papists are. For he says that it is 
an apostolical tradition, “that no one should contract marriage 
after a vow of celibacy 2," and that to do otherwise is impious. So 
far he and the papists agree. But in that same place Epipha- 
nius affirms that it is better, if one fall in his course, that he should 
take a wife, even after such a vow, and come at length, even 
though halt, into the church, than suffer the daily wounds of secret 
arrows. The papists merely provide that.no man shall contract 
marriage after a vow, but in the meanwhile escape not from those 
“secret arrows." — Epiphanius asserts that it is safer and better to 
desist from the race begun, and contract marriage, than to go on 
to destruction pierced by those deadly shafts of lust. Do they 
approve of him here? Can they tolerate this opinion of his? 
Far from it: they pronounce it an impious and sacrilegious crime 
once to entertain a thought of marriage after such a vow, and they 
annul such marriages though made and celebrated. However, he 
hath one opinion sadly unauthorised: for he thinks this very act 
of contracting marriage after a vow to be a sin; and nevertheless 
he says that it is better to have one sin than many, xpeir Tor €xew 


[! $. 7. p. 1073: év rois dvara€eot rà» àmrooTóAov hacket 6 Üctos Adyos kat 
€ 8 à AL \ 0 , , \ , , , ] 
7 OwWackaria, pr POciperv, rovréavt p) Téuvew Tpixas "yevetov.] 

[2 zapéOckav roívvv oí dyiot Geod dmóaToAot TH ayia OcoU ékkAgaía, épápaprov 
kJ 
eivat TO peta TO ópiaat mapÓevíav eis yagov TpémecOar.—ut supra, p. 511.] 


XIL. | ? QUESTION THE SIXTH. 599 


auapríav piav kai wn mepiscotepas. Who sees not how repug- 
nant this is to sound divinity? For nothing wrong is on any 
account to be done. 

The last of the Greek fathers cited by Bellarmine is Damas- 
CENE. In his book de Fide Orthodox. Lib. rv. c. 17, he says 
that the apostles delivered many unwritten traditions?. I answer: 
We make no account in this question of Damascene, a late author, 
superstitious, and devoted to the worship of images; so that it is 
no wonder that he should afford some patronage to tradition. He 
wrote indeed many things excellently well against the ancient here- 
tics. Yet even the papists cannot venture to defend him upon every 
point: for in c. 18 of that same book he enumerates the Clementine 
Canons of the apostles along with the other canonical books of 
holy scripture; which the papists have not yet ventured on. 

Thus far of the Greek fathers. Now follow the Latin; of 
whom our opponent produces first TERTULLIAN, citing his book de 
Corona Militis, wherein Tertullian contends vehemently for tradi- 
tions: * Of these,” he says, “and similar observances, tradition 
is the author, custom the confirmert," &e. I answer in the first 
place, that Tertullian was a Montanist when he wrote that book ; 
for he mentions the new prophecies, of which Montanus was 
undoubtedly the inventor. Now Montanus was the introducer of 
tnany traditions which could not afterwards be extirpated. He 
said that he had that Paraclete whom Christ promised; and rely- 
ing upon the authority of this Paraclete, he introduced many 
things into the church without the authority of scripture. This 
wicked Montanus deluded Tertullian himself, whose loss and fall 
we may well lament: for at that time there was none more 
learned, none more holy, none more earnest in the defence of the 
christian faith, than Tertullian; yet this heresy of Montanism 
hath stripped this father of all his credit. So Hilary speaks, in 
his commentary on Matthew, canon 5: “ Although Tertullian hath 
written very suitable discourses upon this subject, yet the error 
which afterwards attached to him hath deprived even his com- 
mendable writings of all authority®.” Jerome in his book against 


[3 dre 0€ xal mAeicra of dmóaToXo: dypapds mapa8e0ckact ypader TaddXos. 
k. T.A.—c. 16. T. 1. p. 282. ed. Lequien. Paris. 1712.] 

[* Harum et aliarum ejusmodi disciplinarum si legem expostules scrip- 
turarum, nullam invenies; traditio tibi preetendetur auctrix, consuetudo con- 
firmatrix, et fides observatrix.—c. 4.] 

[5 Quanquam et Tertullianus hac de re aptissima volumina scripserit, sed 
consequens error hominis detraxit scriptis probabilibus auctoritatem. ] 


6C0 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


Helvidius denies him to have been ** a man of the church ;^ and in 
his Catalogue he says of Tertullian, that “he wrote many things 
against the church ;" as indeed he did. This being so, how absurd 
it is to obtrude these Montanistie traditions upon Tertullian’s 
authority! Vincentius Lirinensis, Commonit. c. 24, writes excel- 
lently of Tertullian, whom he compares to Origen: ** What," says 
he, * could be more learned than this man? Where could we find 
greater skill in all things human and divine? &c. And yet, after 
all this, even he, this very Tertullian, losing his hold of catholic 
doctrine, and far more eloquent than fortunate, changed his opinion 
afterwards," &c.! Who would not fear in his own case when so 
great a man fell into heresy ? 

Secondly, I reply that all those traditions which Tertullian 
here praises, with the single exception of the sign of the cross, 
are now abrogated by the papists themselves; and consequently, 
that their conduct is at once impious and impudent, when they 
object to us traditions which they themselves neither retain nor 
judge worthy of observance.  Tertullian's traditions are such as 
these; dipping thrice in baptism, presenting milk and honey to be 
tasted immediately after baptism, abstaining from the bath for a 
week after baptism, taking the Eucharist at meal-times, annual 
oblations to be made by every one in honour of the martyr's an- 
niversaries, considering it a crime to worship kneeling on the Lord's 
day, or from Easter to Pentecost. These are the traditions which 
Tertullian mentions and praises so highly in this place, and not one 
of which is observed by the papists Nay, he seems to have 
written this book expressly against the catholics. The very argu- 
ment of the book seems to prove this, which is as follows: * The 
soldiers were to receive a crown of laurel: one of them refused to 
wear that crown upon his head, because he was a Christian, and 
told the tribune of it; whence ensued a great slaughter of the 
Christians. The catholies said that this was an ill-timed profession 
of Christianity. Tertullian defended it, and praises the soldier.’ 
Besides, in that same book he speaks thus of the catholics: “I 
know them well, lions in peace, but harts in war?.” 

The other place cited by Bellarmine from this same Tertullian is 

[! Quid hoe viro doctius? quid in divinis atque humanis rebus exercita- 
tius?....Et tamen hie quoque post hsc omnia, hic inquam Tertullianus, 
catholici dogmatis parum tenax, ae disertior multo quam felicior, mutata 
deinceps sententia, &c.—Commonit. c. 24.] 


[2 Novi et pastores eorum in pace leones, in prelio cervos.—De Coron. 
Mil. c. 1. p. 203. Col. Agripp. 1607.] 


XII. | QUESTION THE SIXTH, 601 


found in his book of Prescriptions against heresies, which he wrote 
before he fell into the Montanistic heresy. In that book he says 
that we should dispute against the heretics out of tradition, and not 
out of scripture. I answer: This seems, at first sight, to favour our 
opponents, and yet it inflicts a severe blow upon their cause. Tertul- 
lian had to deal with those same adversaries, as we have said before, 
that Irenzus also was engaged with. They denied the perfection 
of the scriptures; and so do the papists. They said also that the 
apostles did not deliver everything to all, but some things only to 
the perfect: so do the papists at the present day. Besides, when 
Tertullian and Irenzus produced the scriptures, these men despised 
them. Furthermore, they mutilated and corrupted the scriptures, 
and denied some of the prophets, evangelists, and apostles. Hence 
Tertullian (as Irenzeus did before him) appeals from the scriptures 
to the church and its discipline; not to any unwritten doctrine, but 
to the defence, propagation, and promulgation of that doctrine which 
the apostles left delivered down orally in the churches founded by 
them. For, says he, the teaching which was first was true; that 
which was later, false; or, as he expresses it against Praxeas, 
* That was true which was first, that spurious which came later." 
And he refutes those who said that the apostles had delivered 
certain secret doctrines to the perfect, by shewing that if there had 
been any doctrines of that sort, the churches founded by the apo- 
stles would have had and retained them. 

Cyprian of Carthage, whom Bellarmine next objects to us, lived 
a century and more after Tertullian. In his epistles, Lib. 1. Ep. 12, 
he declares it necessary that baptized persons should be anointed, 
and pronounces this to be a tradition. And Lib. rr. Ep. 3, disputing 
concerning the mixture of water with the wine in the Eucharist, he 
says that * the tradition of the Lord should be observed." I an- 
swer, in the first place, that Cyprian was no apostle, and therefore 
his words should be examined, and not all received at once. So 
Augustine determines, contra Crescon. Lib. ir. c. 32; where, speak- 
ing of an epistle of Cyprian's, he uses these expressions: ** I am not 
bound by the authority of this epistle, because I do not hold the 
epistles of Cyprian for canonical scriptures; but I judge of them by 
the canonical books, and receive with approbation what in them 
agrees with the authority of the scriptures of God, but reject, 
without meaning him any disrespect, whatever does not agree*,” 


[3 Id esse verum quodcunque primum; id esse adulterum quodcunque 
posterius.—c. ii. p. 606. ] 
[* Ego hujus epistole auctoritate non teneor, quia literas Cypriani non 


602 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


Secondly, I reply that Cyprian himself advises us to reject all 
customs which cannot plead for themselves the authority of scrip- 
ture. Indeed, in that very same epistle he says that we ought to 
do as Christ did, and enjoined us to do, not minding what any one 
before us supposed ought to be done, but only what Christ, who is 
before all, first did. Let us, therefore, not mind what he himself 
said, but examine him by this very law laid down by himself. 

First, then, let us see what he says of unction, Lib. 1. Ep. 12: 
“Those who are baptized must needs be anointed!.” Whence, I 
beseech you, springs this necessity ? Forsooth, that we may begin 
to be the anointed of God. Who sees not what a cold conceit is 
here? Can we not be the anointed of the Lord without this oil? 
If not, why did Christ give no precept to anoint when he com- 
manded to baptize? and when we read in the Acts that so many 
were baptized, why do we not read that they were anointed also ? 
If without this external oil we are not the anointed of the Lord, 
then Christ is not the Lord’s anointed, since we nowhere read that 
he had this external unction: yet the Psalmist says that he was 
‘anointed with the oil of gladness. above his fellows.” Perhaps 
Cyprian took this unction from Tertullian, from whom he derived 
much, and Tertullian from Montanus. Erasmus, in his book upon 
the purity of the tabernacle, says that formerly baptism was cele- 
brated with water alone, but that afterwards the fathers added 
chrism. He says the fathers, not Christ or the apostles. 

Next, as to the mixing of water with the wine in the Eucharist 
(which tradition Cyprian mentions, Lib. rr. Epist. 3)?, I reply, that 
Cyprian in that epistle is not so much solicitous about mixing water 
with the wine, as earnest to oppose the Aguarii, who rejected 
wine, and used nothing but water in the Eucharist: against these 
he says, ** Let the tradition of the Lord be observed." However, I 
do not deny that the fathers used formerly to mix water with the 
wine. That is evident as well from Cyprian as from Justin's second 
Apology, besides the Padagogus of Clemens Alexandrinus, Lib. 1. 


ut canonicas habeo, sed eas ex canonicis considero, et quod in eis divinarum 
scripturarum auctoritati congruit, cum laude ejus accipio; quod autem non 
congruit, cum pace ejus respuo.—T. vit. p. 177.] 

{1 Ungi quoque necesse est eum qui baptizatus sit, ut accepto chrismate, 
id est, unctione, esset unctus Dei, et habere in se gratiam Christi posset. —Ep. 
70. p. 190. ed. Fell. Amstol. 1691.] 

(? Admonitos autem nos scias, ut in calice offerendo Dominica traditio 
servetur, neque aliud fiat a nobis, quam quod pro nobis Dominus prior fecerit. 
Ut calix, qui in commemoratione ejus offertur, mixtus vino offeratur.—Ep. 
63. p. 148.] 


xit.] | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 608 


e. 2. The reason was, because in those places the wine was so 
strong that it could not be drunk conveniently unless tempered with 
water: they therefore diluted their wine with water, because it 
required such a mixture. This is plain from the last chapter of 
2 Maccabees, at the close: ** Wine is not pleasing by itself, nor 
water by itself; but wine mixed with water produceth a plea- 
sant and delectable taste." If wines were now so strong with us 
as not to be fit to drink without water, it would be lawful even 
in the Eucharist to use water with the wine, as a thing in itself 
indifferent, provided only that the water destroyed not the nature 
of the wine, but only tempered and diluted it. Cyprian, however, 
appears to value this custom too highly: for he says, If the wine 
be without the water, then Christ is without the people; if the 
water be without the wine, then the people is without Christ. But 
Christ cannot be so easily severed from his church ; for the tie by 
which Christ is united to the church is far too strong and binding 
to be so readily broken asunder. These therefore are mere fig- 
ments. 

Our opponent goes through the rest of his patristic testimonies, 
and cites some from Hilary, Ambrose and Jerome, which might be 
altogether omitted as impertinent to the present occasion. For 
HirARY), in that passage which Bellarmine urges, does not affirm 
that any dogma not contained in scripture should be received; but 
only that a term may be used, although it do not occur in scripture. 
In that book he replies to Constantine, who was an Arian, and re- 
jected the term Homoiision, because it could not be found in scripture. 
But this is of no force against us: for we readily receive even new 
terms, provided they are such as expound the genuine sense of 
scripture. Such are consubstantial, Trinity, person, supposition, 
unbegotten, Ócorókos, and the like, which are convenient exponents 
of the meaning of scripture. But we should cautiously avoid those 
terms which are foreign from the scriptures, such as transubstantia- 
tion, consubstantiation, concomitance, ubiquity, and the like. 

. AMBROSE is cited, in his book concerning the Initiate, c. 2 and 
6,* where he explains the rites observed in baptism, which are 
nowhere found written in the sacred pages. The same author, 


[3 Nolo, inquit, verba que non scripta sunt dici... Dic prius si recte 
diei putas; nolo adversum nova venena novas medicamentorum compara- 
tiones ... novitates vocum, sed profanas, devitare jubet apostolus.—Hilar. 
c. Const. Imper. $. 16. coll. 1250, 1251. Paris, 1693.] 

[4 Ambrosii Opp. T. vir. p. 4—14. Paris. 1839.] 


604 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


Serm. 25, 34, and 36,! teaches us that Lent was instituted by 
Christ; and Ep. 81, and Serm. 38, he says that the Apostles' 
Creed is an unwritten tradition of the apostles. I answer, in the 
first place, that all Ambrose's statements are not to be received; 
for many both of the ancients and the moderns have justly censured 
him, Secondly, Ambrose recognises the perfection of the scriptures 
in all things necessary, as I shall hereafter make manifest. Thirdly, 
with respect to those traditions, I confess that the particular rites 
which the church of old used in the administration of the sacra- 
ments are not expressly prescribed in scripture. That Lent was 
prescribed by Christ, Ambrose does not teach, but only guess and 
conjecture: and if Christ enjoined Lent at all it was by his 
example; which indeed is what Ambrose meant. For so he says, 
Serm. 54: ** Thou subvertest the law, if thou keep not the example 
set by the Lord's fasting?" Ambrose supposed that the Lenten 
fast was enjoined by the example of Christ in the way of precept. 
He defends Lent, therefore, not by the authority of tradition, but 
of the scriptures; and accommodates to the same purpose other 
scriptures, wrested very unskilfuliy from their true drifts; as, for 
example, the account of the floods of rain-water which fell in the 
times of Noah, when the windows of heaven were opened forty 
days, and of Moses feeding the people of Israel forty years with 
manna from heaven in the wilderness. He heaps together other 
passages of scripture also with no greater wisdom. When he had 
these places of scripture to rely upon, might he not justly accuse of 
* contumacy and prevarication” all those who “subvert this law” 
of the Lenten fast, * given for our salvation, by eating dinners 
therein?” What? Do the papists eat never a dinner from one 
end of Lent to the other? Yea, verily, and every day. They 
are not then good Christians, if we believe Ambrose. For so 
says Ambrose: ** What sort of Christian art thou, that dinest when 
thy Lord is fasting ??" But I forget that this is not dinner, but 
supper, even though they eat the meal at noon: for so they 
choose by a beautiful distinction to prove themselves good catholies, 
and turn dinner into supper, that is, noon into night. Behold the 
noble mirror of popish piety and conscientiousness! Could Ambrose 
recognise these men as catholics or Christians without abandoning 
his law? Now as to the Creed: I acknowledge it to be an apos- 


[1 T.m. p 291; 1. 443; vr. 448; v. 126.] 
[? Rescindis legem, qui exemplum jejunii Dominici non custodis. ] 
[? Qualis Christianus es, cum Domino jejunante tu prandes ?] 


xi. | | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 005 


tolical, but yet a written tradition; for there is not a word of the 
Creed that is not found in the scriptures. Ambrose, not improperly, 
calls the Creed the key of Peter, Serm. 38. 

JEROME, in his epistle to Marcella, says that Lent is an apos- 
tolical tradition*, and in his Dialogue against the Luciferians recog- 
nises the custom of the church®. To this I answer: With respect to 
Lent, the objection hath been already satisfied ; and as to the pious 
customs of the church, who ever blamed, or did not rather highly 
esteem them? But these customs are free, and by no means in the 
class of necessary things: for Jerome taught that all necessary things 
may be found in scripture, as we shall shew in its proper place. 

I come now to AvuGUsTINE, from whom our opponent adduces 
various testimonies. rst he cites the epistle to Januarius, Ep. 118, 
where Augustine writes thus: * Now those which we observe, 
handed down though not written, and which are indeed observed 
by the whole world, may be understood to have been commended 
and enjoined to be kept either by the apostles themselves, or by 
general councils (whose authority 1s most salutary in the church); 
as the anniversary solemnities in which we commemorate the passion 
and resurrection of the Lord, and his ascension into heaven, and 
the coming of the Holy Ghost, and anything else of the like 
nature, which is observed by the whole church wheresoever diffused 
throughout the world." I answer, that Augustine's name stands 
high in the church, and deservedly: yet we must remember that 
he was a man, and therefore might err. And although he seems 
in this place to favour traditions, yet in others he defends the 
perfection of scripture with the utmost earnestness, as shall after- 
wards be more conveniently shewn. He was most clearly of 


[! Nos unam quadragesimam secundum traditionem apostolorum toto 
nobis orbe congruo jejunamus.—Opp. T. Iv. part. 2. coll. 64,65. Paris, 1706. ] 

[5 Etiam si scripturee auctoritas non subesset, totius orbis in hanc partem 
consensus instar preecepti obtineret. Nam et multa alia, que per traditionem 
in ecclesiis observantur, auctoritatem sibi scriptze legis usurpaverunt.—Ibid. 
col, 294. These words are put into the mouth of the Luciferian: but the 
general principle is not disowned by the orthodox Dialogist. | 

[9 Illa autem, que non scripta sed tradita custodimus, que quidem toto 
terrarum orbe observantur, dantur intelligi vel ab ipsis apostolis vel plena- 
ris conciliis (quorum est in ecclesia saluberrima auctoritas) commendata 
atque statuta retineri; sicuti quod Domini passio et resurrectio et ascensio in 
ccelum et adventus de colo Spiritus Sancti anniversaria solemnitate cele- 
brantur, et si quid aliud occurrerit, quod servatur ab universa, quacunque se 
diffundit ecclesia. ] 


606 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


opinion, that no dogma ought to be received which does not rest 
upon scripture. Either, therefore, he here speaks of traditions 
which are not necessary, or he is at variance with himself. But 
I come to the passage itself. Augustine speaks of traditions ob- 
served throughout the whole world. Now what are these? The 
solemn annual celebration of the passion, resurrection, ascension of 
the Lord, and the descent of the Holy Spirit from heaven. I 
answer, in the first place, that these traditions are of no great 
moment: for without these traditions our whole religion may be 
safe and sound; consequently these traditions are not necessary. 
We may confess and bear in mind all that relates to the death, 
resurrection, and ascension of Christ, without any solemnity of 
fixed and stated days. However, I do not condemn the practice 
of the ancient church, which, by a free custom, observed these 
days as festivals. I reply, secondly, that Augustine is ignorant 
and uncertain whether the observance of these days was insti- 
tuted by the apostles or by general councils; which is a sufficient 
proof that the origin of this tradition was unknown. Yet the 
papists say that they are certain of its apostolical institution. Thus 
they know more about the matter than Augustine did. Thirdly, I 
reply, that Augustine does not prove these traditions to have been 
observed by all churches. He says so indeed, but he does not 
prove it, nor could he have proved it; for he did not know what 
was wont to be done by other churches. Perhaps the neighbouring 
churches observed this custom, and it is past doubt that the people 
of Hippo and the whole African church observed it: but he could 
not have been equally certain of all other churches. 

However, the Jesuit endeavours to remove these answers of 
ours: and, firstly, argues that these customs were not free, because 
Augustine subjoins that those things which vary with places are 
free; but that those which are observed through all the world are 
necessary. I answer: Augustine calls those changeful customs 
free, and those which are fixed, necessary ; but how necessary ? 
To salvation? By no means; but because it was necessary for 
every one, wherever he went, to observe them, for the sake of 
avoiding disorder and shunning scandal. This we confess: but we. 
say that such customs are always to be observed with a free con- 
science. Then, as to our assertion that the apostles did not institute 
these festival days, he endeavours to overthrow this also. Brentius 
proves from the fourth chapter of the Galatians, that the apostles 
did not institute them, because Paul in that chapter reproves the 


xt] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 607 


Galatians for making a difference between days. Bellarmine 
answers out of Augustine’s 119th Epist. ad Januarium, that the 
apostle speaks of those who observe times according to the rules 
of the astrologers, I reply, that the Galatians were more inclined 
to Judaize than to observe astrological rules. Therefore he brings 
another answer from Jerome, Chrysostom, and Augustine, upon 
the place. Those fathers say, that in this passage the festivals 
of the Jews, and not those of the Christians, are condemned. I 
answer: Yet even so the scope of the apostle is no less opposed 
to the papists. Paul disputes against those who suppose that any 
external ceremony is necessary to salvation, or to be conjoined 
with faith. If the papists hold this, he disputes against them: 
if they hold it not, then they confess what we desire, that these 
traditions are free, and not necessary. In that same epistle Augus- 
tine complains greatly of the multitude of ceremonies in the church. 
He says that the number of ceremonies had so increased in his 
time, as to make our state seem worse than that of the Jews 
had been. If he were now alive, and could see the state of the 
church, and the additional growth of ceremonies, he would say so 
still more. Socrates, Lib. v. e. 22, and Sozomen, Lib. vu. c. 19, 
and Augustine, Ep. 86, are clearly on our side in this matter: for 
they write that neither Christ nor his apostles prescribed any thing 
concerning festival days. 

The second testimony cited by Bellarmine against us from 
Augustine, is from de Baptism. c. Donat. Lib. 1t. c. 7, Lib. 1v. c. 
6, Lib. rv. c. 24, and Lib. v. c. 23. I answer: Chemnitz gives a 
correct and apposite reply (which I adopt), that Augustine in those 
passages is speaking of persons baptized by heretics, whose baptism 
he affirms ought not to be repeated. And although Augustine 
says that this is a tradition, yet he does not say that it is not in 
scripture; yea, he proves the same from scripture by many testi- 
monies. Bellarmine spends many words to no purpose upon this 
point, and says that no sufficient proof can be brought from serip- 
ture; and that therefore Augustine, although he alleged reasons 
and scripture as much as he could find, yet placed his great foun- 
dation in tradition. I answer: Nevertheless, Lib. v. c. 4, he 
uses these expressions, *Supported by so many and such important 
testimonies of scripture,” &c.—and subjoins, * the reasons of truth 
being so clear," &c. And Lib. v. c. 26, he says that what Cyprian 
advises, namely, “to recur to the fountain-head of scripture,” is 
the best course, and what should be adopted without hesitation. 


608 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


Here we must remark the impudence of Bellarmine. He says that 
Augustine does not prove his point from scripture, but only related 
by what scripture his opponents endeavoured to prove theirs; the 
falsehood of which is manifest. We read indeed, Lib. 1r. c. 8, that 
Cyprian was pressed with ihe authority of custom by the Roman 
bishop Stephen, and yet did not yield to it. Now if the authority 
of custom were as great as the papists wish to make it, he should 
have yielded. Andradius, however, Defens. Con. Trid. Lib. m. 
expressly says that Augustine pleaded many testimonies of scrip- 
ture against the Donatists; whence I argue thus: Those testi- 
monies which Augustine used were either apposite, or they were 
not: if they were, then he .refuted the Donatists by scripture, 
which Bellarmine denies; if they were not, then he abused and 
played upon those passages, which would be a hard thing to say 
of so great a father. 

But Bellarmine hath still another answer ;—that Augustine 
brings conjectures out of scripture, which have indeed some effi- 
cacy towards establishing the truth after it hath been defined 
by a council, but are not sufficient of themselves. Nothing can 
be conceived more unworthy than this reply. For, first, con- 
jectures drawn from scripture are so far from being sufficient to 
refute heretics, that they have absolutely no weight at all. Augus- 
tine would have done more harm than service to his cause, if he 
had brought nothing but conjectures. And, on the contrary, Lib. 
v. c. 47, he himself plainly declares, that he rests upon ‘“ most 
weighty testimonies of scripture" and ‘plain reasons of truth." 
Lib. v. c. 23, he writes that it is contrary to the commandment of 
God to baptize those who come from the heretics, if they have 
already received baptism amongst them, “because it is not only 
shewn, but clearly shewn by the testimony of scripture,” &c. 
Bellarmine says that Chemnitz hath been dishonest in his citation 
of this passage. Why? Because those words “it is plainly shewn 
by the testimony of scripture” are not referred to the preceding 
but to the following point, namely, that many Christians baptized 
in the church lose charity, and yet do not lose their baptism. 
But here he is himself most outrageously dishonest. For Augus- 
tine is proving it repugnant to the commandment of God to 
rebaptize those who were baptized by the heretics, and afterwards 
come into the catholic church, “ because it is not only shewn, but 
clearly shewn, by the testimony of scripture, that many false 
Christians, although they have not the same charity with the 


xir. QUESTION THE SIXTH. 609 


saints, have yet one common baptism with the saints!." Who sees 
not that Augustine applied these many and plain testimonies of 
scripture, whereby it is shewn that baptism remains entire without 
charity, to the confirmation of the cause which he defended 
against the Donatists, namely, that those who come from the 
heretics are not to be rebaptized, because the heretics may retain 
baptism, although they have made shipwreck of charity? Besides, 
if Augustine had adduced nothing but conjectures out of scripture, 
could he have used such words as these, * We may perceive by 
so many and great testimonies of scripture, and clear reasons of 
truth, that Christ's baptism cannot be destroyed by the perversity 
of any man??" And elsewhere, * Because it is not only shewn, 
but manifestly shewn, by the testimony of the holy scriptures,” &c. 
And elsewhere, where he praises the opinion of Cyprian, that we 
should recur to the fountain-head, that is, the scripture, he 
adduces that testimony, ** one God, one baptism," and then goes on 
to mention other scriptures. Finally, if these conjectures are of no 
force until after the definition of a council, they were of no force then 
when Augustine disputed with them against the Donatists ; for up to 
that time nothing had been defined in a council against the Donatists. 
Afterwards Bellarmine adduces a testimony from Innocent's first 

epistle to Decentius?, However he hath omitted this testimony from 
Innocent, and the next from Leo, in his printed edition, although they 
appear in his MS. lectures. I answer briefly: Firstly, those decretal 
epistles are of no weight, no credit, no authority. Secondly, I say, 
that Innocent was wrong in his traditions, as is plain from Augus- 
tine, c. Julian. Lib. rr. c. 2, and elsewhere. Thirdly, I affirm that 
the traditions recited in that epistle are frivolous and empty trifles ; 
such as that the kiss of peace is not to be given before the mys- 
terles are completed, that confirmation is to be celebrated by the 
bishop, remarking that he dares not utter the words of confirmation, 
lest he should seem to betray the mysteries*. Now what, I pray 

(1 Quia scripturarum sanctarum testimoniis non solum ostenditur, sed 
plane ostenditur, multos pseudo-christianos, quanquam non habeant eandem 
caritatem cum sanctis, baptismum tamen communem habere cum sanctis. ] 

(2 Tot tantisque scripturarum testimoniis et perspicuis rationibus veri- 
tatis intelligitur Christi baptismum non fieri cujuslibet hominis perversitate 
perversum.] 

[3 Innocentii ad Decentium Ep. vi. inter Epp. Decret. ac Rescriptt. Rom. 
Pontiff. Matriti. 1821. p. 10.) 


[4 Verba vero dicere non possum, ne magis prodere videar, quam ad con- 
sultationem respondere.—-Ib. p. 11.] 


39 


[ WHITAKER. | 


610 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


you, are these so mystic words? Conjirmo te signo crucis, et 
ungo te chrismate salutis, in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus 
Sancti. These words he dared not utter. Wherefore? 

He then adduces a testimony from Leo, Serm. 6. de Quadrag.! 
and elsewhere. I answer, in the first place, that Leo was wrong 
in saying that the apostles instituted fasts, which they never insti- 
tuted. Secondly, I say that those fasts which Leo delivered are 
not now observed by the papists. For he speaks of fasts upon the 
fourth and sixth days of the week: but the papists do not fast 
upon the fourth day, 

And let so much suffice for an answer to the testimonies of the 
fathers. 





CHAPTER XIII. 
BELLARMINE’S REMAINING ARGUMENTS ARE CONFUTED. 


BEronmE coming to our own arguments, I must reply to the 
remainder of Bellarmine’s. His fifth argument is taken from 
the testimony of heretics, which must needs be a strong one. The 
heretics, says he, of all times have rejected traditions; therefore 
those who despise traditions are hereties. That that was the case 
with Valentinus and Marcion, he proves out of Irenzeus, Lib. 11. c. 2, 
and Tertullian’s Prescriptions. lanswer: In the first place, it does 
not prove that the heretics of all times rejected traditions, that these 
men whom he names rejected them: yea, those very same heretics 
embraced traditions, as is abundantly evident from these same 
authors Irenzeus and Tertullian. In the mean time, there is no con- 
sequence in such reasoning as this: All heretics rejected tradition ; 
therefore all who reject tradition are heretics. Secondly, it is no way 
surprising that Valentinus and Marcion should have rejected such tra- 
ditions as Irenzeus means, and by which they clearly saw that they 
were refuted; for Irenzus produced the tradition of the apostolic 
churches. Now this tradition was no other than the conservation 
and propagation of the apostolic doctrine by the public ministry of - 
the church. Nor is it wonderful that those men should have despised 


[! Quod ergo, dilectissimi, in omni tempore unumquemque convenit 
facere Christianum, id nunc solicitius est et devotius exsequendum, ut aposto- 
lica institutio quadraginta dierum jejuniis impleatur.—Leon. Opp. p. 40. 
Lugd. 1633.] 


xii. | | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 611 


traditions, who made no account of scripture, and thought themselves 
wiser than the apostles. As to Cyprian, his error did not lie in 
rejecting custom and appealing to scripture, (for he is praised by 
Augustine for doing so,) but in thinking that his opinion could be 
established by- scripture, whereas scripture is subversive of it. Even 
Gratian, Dist. 8 and 9, approves of Cyprian for refusing to yield to 
mere custom?. Bellarmine subjoins that the Arians (to mention no 
more) appealed to the scripture alone. lanswer: The Arians clung to 
the bare words of scripture: we do not imitate them in that. We 
do not reject terms which never occur in scripture, provided the 
sense and force of those terms be contained in scripture, as we have 
frequently replied already: on which account we condemn the 
Arians for rejecting the Homoiision. However, religion and piety 
do not consist in words; and Luther said truly, that he should not 
be a heretic if he rejected the term Homoiision, and yet so thought 
of the Son of God as the scriptures have delivered. 

Bellarmine’s sixth argument is taken from the custom of all 
nations, and specially of the Jews. Origen, Hom. v. in Numeros, 
Hilary, in Ps. w., and Anatolius, ap. Euseb. Lib. vu. c. 28, testify 
that the Jews had unwritten traditions. I answer: In the first 
place, it is a mere talmudical and cabbalistic fancy to suppose, that 
though the law was delivered in writing by Moses, the mysteries 
of the law were concealed by him, and entrusted only orally to 
persons wiser than the rest. Hence have arisen their exceeding 
foolish traditions of the Mishnah (devrepwoes), which Jerome and 
the other fathers so frequently deride. I reply, secondly, that the 
Jesuit himself confesses that some catholics have been in a different 
opinion, and that the Jews had no such traditions; although he 
does not assent to their view. However, the reasons on which he 
grounds his dissent are very slight. The first reason is, because 
(says he) we have already shewn that all things are not contained 
in the law. J answer: But we have shewn before that you have 
shewn no such thing. What (I beseech you) were the points which 
you determined not to be contained in the law?  Expiation of 
original sin in the case of women, or of males dying before the 
eighth day. So Stapleton also, Lib. xu. e. 5, with whom Bellar- 
mine agrees, as you have already heard. But we have sufficiently 
replied to these conjectures. Stapleton however adds, that **nei- 


[? Et certe, ut beati Cypriani utamur sententia, queelibet consuetudo.... 
veritati est postponenda.—Decret. Pars 1. Dist. 8. c. 5. Corp. Jur. Canon. 
Lugd. 1591.] 


39——2 


612 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


ther is faith in Christ as mediator ever written of in the whole old 
Testament.” Who can tolerate such an assertion as this, that the 
faith of Christ in nowhere found in the whole old Testament ? Why 
then does Christ affirm that the scriptures testify of him? Or why 
did the apostles establish the Christian faith by the old Testament, 
and the fathers say that the new Testament was hidden in the old ? 
Bellarmine, I suppose, was ashamed of this notion of Stapleton's : and 
indeed it is full of error and Jewish blasphemy. However, Bellar- 
mine hath another argument against the opposite opinion. The 
Jews, says he, must have-had tradition, because, for a long time 
after the birth of Moses the people lived without a written law. 
I answer: It is true indeed that everything was not written im- 
mediately after Moses’ birth; but let him prove, if he can, that all 
was not written when Moses had written the law. In Exodus xxiv. 
3, we read that * Moses recited to the people all the words of 
the Lord." Therefore he did not conceal those mysteries from 
them. Christ also and the apostles always appeal to the scriptures, 
urge the scriptures, expound the scriptures, and never make any 
mention of these hidden mysteries. Besides, if there were such 
hidden mysteries, then the better part of the divine law would have 
been unwritten ; which is by no means to be thought. 

But Bellarmine goes on to prove from Thucydides, Aristotle, 
Lycurgus, Cicero, and Cesar, that profane nations also were in 
great measure governed by unwritten laws, and had their unwritten 
customs. He adds proofs, besides, from the canon and civil law. 
He produces all these testimonies to shew that the force of customs 
and written laws is equal. I answer: In the first place, the church 
is not governed in the same way as profane republics. Political 
laws cannot provide for every individual case, or embrace all par- 
ticulars; and therefore customs, having the force of laws, are neces- 
sarily required. But it was an easy thing for God to deliver all 
things necessary for salvation in the scriptures. Yet even in the 
state custom does not always prevail. Cicero says in his book de 
Claris Oratoribus, ‘We must not use that most corrupt rule of 
custom.” Demosthenes too writes somewhere, that we must not do 
as is often wont to be done, but as it is fitting should be done, ov 
ws yéryove ToANAKIS, GAN ws TpocyKer yiryvecOa. Tertullian in 
his tract, de Velandis Virginibus, says most correctly : ** Whatever 
savours of opposition to truth is a heresy, although it be an old 
custom.” Old custom, therefore, is of no avail in religion, although 
it have great weight in the commonwealth. He adds in the same 


XiIL. | | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 613 
place, * Christ named himself truth, not custom!" As to the canon 
law, see Gratian, Distinct. 8, where he shews from Cyprian, Augus- 
tine, and Gregory, that no stress is to be laid upon custom when it 
opposes truth. Secondly, there is yet another difference. In civil 
affairs which appertain to this life, men have the light of reason, 
and understand what they should do: but in religion, and things 
pertaining to faith, they are blind by nature and cannot without 
the divine words and laws rightly worship God, or attain to life. 
Wherefore they are by no means to be left to themselves, but must 
be bound to certain and written laws. 

The Jesuit's seventh argument is taken from the dignity and 
privilege of the church. The church, says he, is the pillar of 
truth, the bride of Christ, &c. Now it would have no such pri- 
vilege if all things were written, and plainly written; because then 
all, even heretics, pagans, and Jews, would understand as much of 
the mysteries of our faith as we do ourselves: and then also that 
would be false which Irenzus writes, Lib. rir. c. 4, that the apostles 
had most fully lodged all that appertains to the faith in the church, 
as in a rich repository. I answer: Firstly, I confess that the 
church is the pillar of truth, the bride of Christ, and intimately 
acquainted with the secrets of God; but I affirm that these and 
other encomiums of the church belong only to the elect and the 
faithful, not to the whole multitude of those who profess the 
christian religion and the external worship of God: for these 
have not universally an union with Christ. Secondly, I reply 
that the knowledge and understanding of scripture is twofold, one 
of the letter, and the other of the spirit. As to the former kind 
of knowledge, it is no privilege of the church; for even the 
impious can attain to this knowledge as well as the pious: nor will 
even. the papists themselves say that all their most learned bishops, 
and popes, and schoolmen, were living members of the church, 
and endowed with true piety; though, notwithstanding, they main- 
tain them to have been exquisitely skilled in scripture in respect of 
their knowledge of the letter. Yea, the devil himself, who exceeds 
all men in wickedness, exceeds them also in knowledge. But as to 
the other sort of knowledge, that is of the spirit, the church hath 
in this its greatest privilege. I mean the body of the elect; for 
they only are taught of God, they only understand the scriptures 
aright. The rest hearing hear not, seeing see not, and reading 


[! Quodeunque adversus veritatem sapit, hoc erit heeresis, etiam vetus 
consuetudo ..... Christus veritatem se, non consuetudinem cognominavit.— 
c. 1, p. 220, Col. Agripp. 1617.] 


614 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [oH. 


understand not. In Luke viii. 10, Christ says to his disciples: 
* To you,” that is, the faithful, “it is given to understand the 
mysteries of the kingdom of God; but to the rest speak I in 
parables, that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not 
understand." And, 1 Cor. ii. 14, Paul says that **the natural man re- 
ceiveth not the things of God ;" and they themselves cannot deny that 
many of their prelates may have been, and actually were, such. 
The eighth argument of the Jesuit is drawn from the dignity 
of many mysteries. Many mysteries of our religion (says Bellar- 
mine) are of such a kind as to require silence: otherwise they 
would be known to all; which must not be. But such would be 
the case if they were written: therefore all are not written. 
But let us see what mysteries he means. rst, says he, we do 
not admit any but a baptized person to the sacrifice of the mass. 
I answer: Does he think that we make any account of their 
masses, or care what they do in them? I confess, indeed, that 
Christ and the apostles wrote nothing about such toys as these. 
But the eucharist itself is described by three evangelists, Matthew, 
Mark, and Luke, and by the apostle Paul besides. What then? 
Were they unwise in writing these things? Yea, rather they 
were wise, and our adversaries foolish for thinking otherwise. The 
Jesuit next uses the following argument: Christ explained his 
parables to the disciples apart, Luke vii. Therefore, &c. I an- 
swer: We also say in like manner that the scriptures cannot be 
understood by all, and yet should be set before all. So Christ 
proposed his parables to all, though he only explained them to his 
disciples. For the true interpretation of scripture is granted only 
to the elect and faithful. The Jesuit argues, thirdly, from 1 Cor. 
ii. 6. “ We speak wisdom amongst them that are perfect." There- 
fore, says he, all things are not to be told to all, but some are to 
be reserved for the perfect and wise. I answer: Now the Jesuit 
shews plainly his agreement with the heretics, and those not 
hereties of the meaner sort, but the chief and most celebrated of 
them all, Valentinus, to wit, and Marcion. For these heretics, as 
appears from Irenzeus, Lib. mr. c. 2, made use of this same testi- 
mony to prove that all things were not to be drawn from. the 
scriptures. Thus our adversaries use the same weapons as the 
most abandoned hereties used of old, and therein shew themselves 
to be nothing less than catholics. But, however, I reply to Valen- 
tinus, Marcion, and Bellarmine all together, that the apostle speaks 
of the same things as are written. The very same doctrine seems 
sound and full of wisdom to some, and foolish to others. So the 


xiii. ] | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 615 


gospel of Christ, and Christ himself, was a scandal and stumbling- 
block to the Jews, and foolishness to the Greeks; but to the elect 
of both Jews and Greeks (for such are the perfect and the wise) it 
was "the power of God unto salvation.” Fourthly, Bellarmine says, 
that almost all the fathers, when they speak of the eucharist and 
other sacraments, use such expressions as, “The faithful under- 
stand this; the initiated know what is said!" I answer: I confess, 
indeed, that these words frequently occur in the fathers, and I 
know well that the fathers were very careful and anxious to afford 
no occasion to the Gentiles and profane of ridiculing those holy 
mysteries. They did not choose, therefore, to speak of them 
before all. But it does not therefore follow that the institution of 
the sacraments cannot be found in the bible. 

These are all Bellarmine's arguments: let us now come to our 
own. 





CHAPTER XIV. 


SUCH OF OUR ARGUMENTS AGAINST UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS AS 
BELLARMINE HATH ANSWERED. 


HirHERTO we have stood upon the defensive against our adver- 
sarles, and sustained their attack in such a manner as that none of 
their weapons have done any execution upon us. We will now 
begin to assail them in our turn. First, we will produce our argu- 
ments from scripture, as being far the strongest of all; and of 
these scriptural arguments, we will place foremost those which 
Bellarmine hath attempted to answer. 

The first passage of scripture is contained in Deut. iv. 2, ** Thou 
shalt not add unto this word which I speak unto you, neither shalt 
thou diminish from it." Also in Deut. xii. in the last verse, similar 
expressions occur : *Do only this which I command you ; thou shalt 
not add thereto, nor diminish aught from it." From these pas- 
sages we gather the following argument: If the Jews were not per- 
mitted to add anything to the books of Moses, then still less is it 
lawful for us to add anything to the canon of scripture, now 
increased by so many books since. But the former was not per- 
mitted: therefore still less is it now permitted to us. The conse- 
quence in the major is necessary ; for, if the five books of Moses 


[! tcacw oi pepvnpévot. This phrase, as observed by Casaubon, occurs 
at least fifty times in the writings of Chrysostom alone.] 


616 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ CH. 


contain a full and perfect body of doctrine, as they certainly do, 
and Moses therefore forbids any addition to be made, then surely 
a most abundantly perfect body of doctrine must needs be found 
in the whole circle of the books of the old and new Testaments. 
The minor rests upon the express words of scripture, “Thou shalt 
not add to this word, neither shalt thou diminish from it.” 

Our opponents have devised various replies, but Bellarmine 
shall stand in the place of all. He hath a twofold answer. In the 
first place, he says, that these words are not to be understood of 
the written word of God, but of the word orally delivered. This 
he proves by two reasons: first, because the scriptures were not 
then extant; secondly, because Moses says * Which I command 
you,” not, which I write. I reply to the first, that his assertion 
that the scriptures were not then published is manifestly shewn to 
be false by the scriptures themselves. But even if they had not 
been then written, yet Moses intended to write them. However, 
as I said, the scripture shews Bellarmine’s assertion to be false ; 
for in Exod. xxiv. 4, we read, ‘ Moses wrote all the words of the 
Lord." This was in the first or second year after the departure 
from Egypt. Now he delivered this discourse in Deuteronomy in 
the fortieth year after the Exodus, in the eleventh month, as 
appears from Deut. i. 3, a few days before his death; for he died 
in the twelfth month of that same year. All therefore did not 
remain to be written at that time, since so short an interval as 
passed between this harangue and the death of Moses was not 
sufficient for committing all to writing. That the book of Deuter- 
onomy was then written, appears from the book itself; since we 
often read in it, “the words which are written in this book." 
This probably Bellarmine perceived on second thoughts; for he 
hath omitted this reason in his late publication, although he presses 
it in the MS. He found out therefore afterwards, that it was no 
reason at all Secondly, as to his observation that Moses says, *I- 
command,” not, “I write," it does not follow from this that the 
passage is not meant to refer to the written law. In Joshua i. 7, 
Joshua is commanded to do what the Lord had commanded him. 
What? Were these commandments therefore not written? On 
the contrary, it is plain from what follows that they were written: 
“This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but 
thou shalt meditate in it day and night." In the commencement 
of Deut. xxviii, it is thus written, “If thou wilt keep the things 
which I command thee this day,” &c. And from verse 58 of the 
same chapter it appears that these were written; for the same 


XIV. | | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 617 


Moses says to the same people, “If thou keep not all the things 
which are written in this book," &c. At the end of Deut. xxvii. 
we read thus: * Cursed be he who continueth not in all the words 
of this law;" and Paul, Galat. ii. 10, interprets this to mean 
written words: “In all things which are written in the book of 
this law." Thus he implies that the whole law was written. 
There is no consequential force then in the argument, that because 
he says “ which I command," not, “ which I have written," there- 
fore this word was not committed to writing, but delivered by oral 
tradition. Besides, if Moses had entrusted some things orally to 
certain persons, which he considered unfit to be written; to whom 
could he have committed them rather than to Joshua, to whom he 
imparted all his counsels, and who was his successor in office? 
Yet Joshua himself is referred, and, as it were, tied to the book, 
Josh. i: “ This book shall not depart from thee, but thou shalt 
meditate therein day and night." In which words Joshua's medi- 
tation is referred to the book of the sacred scriptures which Moses 
himself had published, and not directed to those unwritten pre- 
cepts. However, Bellarmine dismisses this reply of his as not 
sufficiently strong or safe, and betakes himself to another, which 
he says is the true one. 

Secondly, then, he answers, that the Lord willed in these 
words, that his commandments should not be corrupted, but kept 
entire, as he enjoined them. In these things which I command 
you, you shall make no change, either by addition or diminution : 
but he does not say, you shall observe nothing else but what I 
now command you. I answer: I confess, indeed, that false inter- 
pretations of scripture are condemned in these words; but this is 
not the whole of what is here prohibited. For when God forbids 
them to add, he signifies that this body of doctrine was so perfect 
as that nothing could or should be added to it; and that, therefore, 
we should acquiesce in it, be satisfied with it, and cleave to it alone. 
They add, therefore, who determine that this teaching is not com- 
plete and full. And when we shew that this word is written, we 
shew that the written word contains a full and perfect body of 
doctrine, to which nothing should be added. The ancient Jews 
understood and explained these words to mean that nothing should 
be added to the written word. So Josephus, quoted by Eusebius, 
Lib. nr. c. 8, testifies that the authority of their sacred books was 
so great, that nothing was added to, or taken from them, for so 
many ages. So the fathers also interpret these words. I will 
content myself with alleging Chrysostom, who, in his 52nd Homily 


618 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


upon Matthew, says that the priests added many things to the 
law, although Moses had enjoined them, with threats, not to do so. 
Nor let any one suppose that Chrysostom speaks there of things 
contrary to scripture; for he refers to those rites of frequent 
washings used by the Jews. Those washings were not simply 
contrary to scripture, but only because the Pharisees made holiness 
consist in them; and yet Chrysostom confesses that, in this way, 
an addition was made to the law, contrary to the command of God. 
Hence it appears that this passage in Deuteronomy should be un- 
derstood of the written word; since Chrysostom says that the Jews 
made additicns, because they used rites which were nowhere 
written, although not absolutely contrary to scripture. Nay, 
Thomas Aquinas himself explains this passage thus, “that nothing 
should be added to the words of holy scripture, or diminished from 
them!;” and Cajetan, upon the place, says, “It may be gathered 
from this that the law of God is perfect.” 

But let us see how Bellarmine establishes his interpretation. 
Because otherwise, says he, the prophets and apostles would have 
sinned, who afterwards added so much, if these words be under- 
stood to forbid any addition; therefore they ought to be under- 
stood not of not adding to, but of not corrupting what was written. 
I answer, in the first place, that the prophets and apostles were 
not to be ranked with other men, but had as much authority as 
Moses himself, and therefore deserved as much credit as he. The 
papists cannot establish their traditions by the same authority. 
Secondly, that the prophets and apostles, when they wrote new 
books, added nothing to the written word of God. For we must. 
distinguish two things in the word of God;—the sum of the 
doctrine itself, and its principal heads,—and the explication of 
these heads. As to the sum of doctrine, nothing was added by 
the prophets and apostles; which may thus be easily proved. The 
whole scripture is composed of two parts, the law and the gospel. 
No one denies that the whole law of Moses, moral, judicial, and 
ceremonial, is written. But perhaps doubts may be entertained 
respecting the gospel. Nay, the whole of the gospel itself may 
be found in the books of Moses. There is no article of the Creed 
itself, for which there is not some illustrious proof extant in 
Moses. Therefore, the whole doctrine of it, meaning the sum 
of its teaching, is contained in the books of Moses. But as to 
the clearer exposition and explication of this teaching, many ad- 


[1 Sacra enim scriptura est regula fidei, cui nec addere nec subtrahere 
licet. —Secunda secunda, Quest. 1. Art. ix. Tom. 11. p. 5, Antwerp. 1627.] 


xiv. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 619 


ditions were made by the prophets and apostles. The prophets 
illustrated Moses, the apostles the prophets: but neither the one 
nor the other added any dogma which is not found in the books of 
Moses; just as he who explains a law adds nothing to the law. On 
this account the apostles prove their gospel by the books of the 
old Testament; and Christ says, John v., “Search the scriptures 
... for they testify of me.” 

But Bellarmine persists, and turns upon Chemnitz, Brentius, 
and Calvin, who had used this answer, thus: In the same way, 
says he, traditions are not additions to, but explications of, scripture: 
for traditions too are found in scripture, not in the particular 
indeed, but in the universal; and the new Testament is no otherwise 
found in the old. He uses a comparison to illustrate this answer 
of his: as the tree is in the seed virtually, so the new Testament 
is in the old, implicitly and potentially, in the universal, but not 
in the particular. And in the same way tradition is in scripture: 
for as Moses says generally, * A prophet shall the Lord your God 
raise up unto you like unto me; him shall ye hear;” so we are 
in the general commanded by the apostle to “keep the traditions.” 
Thus he replies to Chemnitz, Brentius, and Calvin. But I under- 
take to obviate this reply. In the first place, I maintain that 
most of the popish traditions can by no means be expositions of 
scripture, because they most openly contradict and oppose scripture. 
Such are their worship of images, and sacrifice of the altar; as shall 
hereafter, if God permit, be made clear, when we come to those 
controversies. Concerning these and such-like expositions of serip- 
ture we may truly say: Woe to the gloss which corrupts the text ! 
Secondly, I say that the Jesuit’s pretence, that the new Testament 
is contained in the old, not in the particular, but only generally, is 
untrue. The comparison which he uses is impious and blasphemous, 
that the new Testament is no otherwise contained in the old, than 
as a tree in the seed, that is, only virtually and potentially: for 
all the dogmas and heads of the gospel are found in the old 
Testament, not in the universal merely, but also in the particular ; 
not only implicitly but explicitly, although indeed not so plainly and 
perspicuously. If we run through all the articles of our faith, we 
shall find them all, even in the particular, in the old Testament,— 
as that God is the Creator of heaven and earth, that Christ is the 
Son of a virgin, and so forth. All these are predicted in the old 
Testament, and the accomplishment related in the new. But they 
will say, perhaps, that the sacraments of the new Testament cannot 
be found in the old; for this occurs to me as I ponder the subject. 


620 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


Yet they can. For the sea and the rock prefigured baptism, and 
manna the Eucharist, as the apostle testifies, 1 Cor. x. Otherwise 
the apostles could not have proved all the dogmas which they 
propounded out of the old Testament. Now it is certain that the 
apostles confirmed all they said by its authority. Consequently, 
the Bereans searched the scriptures (Acts xvii.) to see whether 
those things which Paul preached were so. But if (as the Jesuit 
says) the whole new Testament were comprehended in this sentence 
only (* The Lord your God will raise up unto you a prophet like 
unto me; him shall ye hear,") as the tree is in the seed, the 
apostles could certainly never have persuaded the Jews that this 
Jesus was the Messiah. But they used many other testimonies of 
scripture. Paul says, Acts xxvi. 22, that he said “nothing but what 
Moses and the prophets did say.” So Christ, Luke xxiv. 27, “ be- 
ginning at Moses and all the prophets, expounded in all the scrip- 
tures the things concerning himself.” There were, therefore, other 
testimonies, sufficiently clear, besides that single one which Bellar- 
mine cites. And Rom. i. 2, Paul says, that the gospel was pro- 
mised in the prophets. It is false then that the new Testament 
is only potentially in the old. For the whole gospel is no less 
perfeetly in the old than in the new Testament, although not so 
perspieuously. The tree is as much in the old Testament, as in 
the new, though it spreads not its branches so diffusely. 

Irenzus, Lib. 1v. c. 66, after having shewn at large that Christ 
accomplished all that the prophets had predicted, subjoins at length 
at the close of that chapter: “Read more diligently the gospel given 
us by the apostles, and read more diligently the prophets, and ye will 
find that all that the Lord did and suffered and taught is preached 
in them!.” This passage subverts Bellarmine’s reply. Augustine, 
upon Psalm cv., says, that “the old Testament is unveiled in the 
new, and the new veiled in the old.” And, ec. Faust. Manich. 
Lib. xvu. c. 6, he writes thus: ‘ Christ came not to add what was 
wanting, but to do and accomplish what was written?" And he 
says that Christ himself indicates this in his own words, when he 
says, * One jot or one tittle shall not pass from the law” (not, 
until what is wanting be added, but) “until all things which are 


[! Legite diligentius id quod ab apostolis est evangelium nobis datum, et 
legite diligentius prophetas, et invenietis universam actionem, et omnem doc- 
trinam, e£ omnem passionem Domini nostri predicatam in ipsis.— p. 404. 
Paris. 1675.] 

[? Venit Christus non ut addereatur que deerant, sed ut fierent et 
implerentur que scripta sunt.] 


XIV. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 621 


written shall be accomplished.” So that even Christ himself added 
nothing, but all he taught, did, and suffered, was contained in the 
old Testament. Jerome says in his Epistle to Damasus: ** What- 
ever we read in the old Testament, we find also in the gospel ; and 
whatever is read in the gospel, is deduced from the authority of 
the old Testament3.” Therefore whatever is found in the new 
Testament may be confirmed, not only in respect of the universal 
but of the partieular also, by the authority of the old Testament, 
We will support this answer of ours by only one testimony more. 
Basil the Great, in his Ascetics, writes thus : ** What is the property 
of a believer? To assent with the fullest persuasion to the word 
of God, to reject nothing, and to superadd nothing." For this is 
the very thing which the Lord forbids, Deut. iv. Then Basil 
subjoins: * For if whatsoever is not of faith is sin, and faith be 
by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, then whatsoever is 
not derived from the scriptures 1s sin.”  Basil's own words are as 
follow: Ti 5v mistov3; TO 6v Tourn awAnpodopia cwvétari- 
0cc0a. TH Ouvapet TeV cipy never, kai d nocE TON QV aQereiv 7 
émdiardr reac e "yap may o OUK ek mio Tews anapría eo Tw, 
Ws prow 0 amTOGTONOS, 1 Oe mois e£ a akons, 1 dé akon Ora 
pina os OcoU, wav TO ExTos THs Ücomvevo ov Mir OUK €K 
micTews Ov, apapria eoTw*. From which words I draw these 
three inferences: First, that those words of Moses contained in 
Deut. iv. and xii. should be understood of the written word of God; 
for it is to those words that Basil here alludes: secondly, that 
the word on which faith is grounded is written: thirdly, that all 
beside the scriptures, é«ros THs Ocomvevotou ypagys, is sin be- 
cause it is not of faith, and should be rejected. Let it suffice to 
have spoken thus much upon the first place from scripture. 

Our second passage of scripture is taken from Rev. xx. 18, and 
is like the former. The words are these: “I testify to every man 
that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man 
shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues 
that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away 
from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away 
his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from 
the things which are written in this book.” Bellarmine replies, 
that these words prohibit the corruption of this book, but not the 


[? Quidquid in vetere Testamento legimus, hoc idem in evangelio 
reperimus; et quod in evangelio fuerit lectitatum, hoe ex veteris Testamenti 
auctoritate deducitur. ] 


[^ Moralia, Reg. 80, T. rr. p. 386, Paris. 1618.] 


622 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ CH. 


writing of new books, or the delivery of new doctrines. “For,” 
says he, * John himself wrote his gospel after this." I answer: 
In the first place, every addition of books, provided they be 
prophetie or apostolie, is not indeed prohibited in these words: 
the prophets or the apostles might add other books. Yet the 
consequence will not hold, that the addition of the popish traditions 
is not forbidden here, unless they can prove that their traditions 
rest upon apostolical authority. Secondly, I confess that these 
words properly pertain to the confirmation of the authority of this 
particular piece of prophetic scripture, but they may also avail to 
the confirmation of the completeness of the whole canon. For we 
may, by parity of reason, argue thus: The authority and analogy 
of the other books is the same: if, therefore, it be not lawful to 
add to this book, then, by parity of reason, it will be unlawful to 
add to any other book, or detract from it. Hence it will follow 
that these books contain in them a full and perfect body of teach- 
ing, and that no dogma should be sought outside them. Now 
those who suppose that there is any other necessary article, add 
to these books. Solomon, Proverbs xxx. 6, writes thus: “ Add 
thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found 
a liar.” So Ambrose gathers from this passage, de Paradiso, c. 12, 
that nothing should be taken away from the divine commands}. 
The same author, in his exposition of the Apocalypse, (if that 
piece be Ambrose’s, which some doubt,) accommodates the words 
now before us to the other scriptures also; and our countrymen of 
Rheims ailege his testimony in their annotations. Now in that 
exposition Ambrose affirms two things: First, that he who 
expounds the scriptures adds nothing; where he tacitly implies 
that whoever does more than expound the scriptures, makes an 
addition to them. In the next place, he says that those heretics 
are accursed, who added any thing to the scriptures, or diminished 
aught from them, for the confirmation of their heresies. Those, 
therefore, who add any thing to the scripture itself, or take any 
thing from it, are obnoxious to this denunciation. Augustine, 
likewise, in his exposition of this place, says that all falsifiers of 
scripture are condemned in these words. Thomas Aquinas in his 
commentary upon 1 Tim. vi., Lect. 1, says that the canonical 
scripture is the rule of our understandings; in confirmation of 
which he subjoins the two places of scripture which we have been 
handling, as well that from Deuteronomy, as this from the 


[! Si quid enim vel addas vel detrahas, preevaricatio queedam videtur esse 
mandati.—T. 1. p. 62. Col. Agripp. 1616. ] 


xiv. ] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 623 


Apocalypse. Therefore he understood these words to refer not 
merely to this book, but to the canon of the whole scripture. 

We have now discussed two passages of scripture, wherein 
additions to, or diminutions from, scripture are forbidden; here 
follows a third, which is contained in Gal. i. 8, in the following 
words: *' Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other 
gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let 
him be accursed ;” and afterwards, v. 9, * If any one preach any 
other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be 
accursed.” It is a remarkable passage, and used by all our 
divines who write against the popish traditions. All those are 
obnoxious to this anathema, who preach any other gospel but that 
which is written. Now the popish traditions (even granting them 
to be not contrary to the scriptures) are yet wholly beside the 
seriptures: those therefore who defend them, lie under the 
weight of this anathema. Whoever preach any thing as gospel 
besides Paul's gospel, are pronounced accursed. The patrons of 
unwritten traditions preach as gospel something beside, yea, con- 
trary to Paul's gospel, since the whole of that is contained in the 
scriptures: therefore the patrons of popish traditions are declared 
accursed. Our argument from these words is confirmed also by 
the judgment of Augustine, c. Liter. Petilian. Lib. ur. c. 6; and of 
Basil, in Summa, Moral. /2, c. 1. Bellarmine returns two answers. 
First, that these words are not to be understood merely of the 
written word, but of the whole word of God, whether written or 
unwritten, and only orally delivered; and he denies that the 
fathers are opposed to this exposition. I answer: I confess that 
the apostle denounces an anathema against those who add any 
thing to that word of God which he preached; but I maintain that 
the whole of that word is contained in the scriptures. For from 
what source did the apostle confirm his gospel? Assuredly, from 
the scriptures of the old Testament. How does this appear? 
From Acts xvii. 10, where we read that the Bereans examined the 
gospel and doctrine of Paul by the scriptures; which they would 
not have done, if all that Paul had delivered were not contained in 
the scriptures. In Acts xxvi. 22, 23, a still plainer testimony 
occurs: in that place the apostle declares to Festus, that he, having 
received help of God, had continued up to that day, testifying to 
all, but saying nothing else than what Moses and the prophets had 
said ; and then he enumerates certain heads of his teaching, Christ's 
death, resurrection, &c. It is manifest, therefore, that the apostle 


624 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


never spoke a word, or taught a single point, which might not be 
proved by the evidence of Moses and the prophets. The whole of 
Paul's Gospel can therefore be proved by the certain and clear 
authority of the old Testament. 

Now as to Bellarmine’s pretence, that Augustine and Basil 
offer no obstacle to our understanding this place as he would have 
it understood, let us see what is in it. ‘Those fathers, says he, 
do not infer from this passage that nothing is to be delivered 
beside the scriptures, but only nothing contrary to them. Now 
these are the words of Augustine in the place cited above: 
“Whether the subject be Christ, or his church, or anything else 
appertaining to our faith and life; if (I do not say we, who are 
no wise comparable to him who said, ‘though we,’ but even what 
he there immediately subjoins, if) an angel from heaven preach to 
you anything besides what you have received in the scriptures of 
the law and of the gospel, let him be accursed!” In these words 
we should observe and consider the following points: First, that 
all that Paul taught may be found in the scriptures. This Augus- 
tine expressly affirms, dividing the scriptures into the law and the 
gospel. Secondly, that all things necessary may be found in these 
legal and evangelical scriptures. For, says Augustine, * Whether 
the subject be Christ, or his church, or anything else appertaining 
to our faith and life.’ Thirdly, that whatever is preached or an- 
nounced besides what is contained in these scriptures, is to be wholly 
rejected. His words are, * besides what is written:" therefore 
not only that which is contrary to, but that also which is beside the 
scriptures, should be refused. Fourthly, it is worthy of observation 
that Augustine joins Paul in anathematizing the patrons and 
preachers of unwritten traditions. Now Basil’s words, Moral. 72, 
are to this effect: “It behoves those hearers who are skilled in 
scripture, to examine what is delivered by their teachers, and to 
receive whatever is consonant to scripture, but reject whatever is 
alien from it!" And in confirmation of this he cites, amongst 
others, this testimony of Paul to the Galatians. Whence it mani- 
festly appears, that Paul is here speaking of the scriptures, and 
condemning every doctrine not therein delivered: otherwise, if a 
teacher might allege other things beside the scriptures, Basil would 
have cited this passage to no purpose. In that case, he should 


;! ^ ^ > ^ Mj , ^ \ y * ^ ^ 
[1 Sei rà» dkpoaróv rovs memaidevpevous tas ypadas Soxyafew rà mapa TOV 
didackadov Aeyópeva* kai Ta pev cvppheva rais ypapais déxerOa, rà Se aAXórpia 


ázoBáAAew.— Opp. T. 11. p. 372.] 


XIV. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 625 


have proposed some other test besides the scriptures, by which those 
skilled in scripture should examine the sayings and teachings of 
their instructors. For how can those who are only skilled in the 
scriptures examine those things which their masters deliver beside 
the scriptures? It appears therefore hence, that whatever is beside 
the scriptures, is alien from them, and therefore should be rejected. 
Thus those fathers say precisely what we say, and maintain the 
same tenets as we maintain. 

But, says Bellarmine, the fathers have used this passage to 
confirm tradition, as Athanasius in his book of the Incarnation 
of the Word, and Cyril in his book upon the Orthodox Faith. I 
answer: Traditions are either consonant to scripture, and then 
they should be received, and those who do not receive them are 
condemned in these words; or they are, as Basil expresses it, alien 
from scripture, and then they should be rejected. These fathers 
speak of those traditions which are consonant to scripture, not of 
such as are alien from it. So much for Bellarmine’s first reply to 
the passage alleged from Gal.i. 8. I come now to his second reply. 

He says, in the second place, that the word “beside” in 
this place is equivalent to *against:" so as that Paul here anathe- 
matizes those who deliver anything against, not beside, the scrip- 
tures; consequently, that new doctrines are not here prohibited, 
provided they do not contradict the scriptures. The Rhemists 
explain the passage in a similar way; and so does Stapleton, 
Lib. xu. c. 10. We, however, take the word “ beside” in its 
strict sense, so as to bring under this denunciation whatever is de- 
livered beside that gospel delivered by the apostle. But let us see 
the reasons by which Bellarmine seems to confirm this reply of his. 
He hath four of them. The first is, because Paul himself taught 
and wrote many things beside; and after this Epistle, John wrote 
his Apocalypse and his Gospel. I answer: I maintain that Paul 
did not afterwards teach other, that is, new and different doctrines 
(as Bellarmine wishes to be supposed), but taught the same things to 
other persons; for, since he went afterwards into other regions 
he was obliged to repeat the same things frequently. Thus he 
taught other persons, but not other things. Now that he neither 
ought to have taught, nor actually did teach, anything different, 
but always one and the same thing, is evident from this, that the 
gospel of Christ is one, and that he always taught the gospel of 
Christ. Bellarmine’s second reason is drawn from the drift and 
design of the apostle, because, says he, the apostle there disputes 


[ WHITAKER. | EN 


626 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


against those who maintained the obligation of the law: now to 
maintain this was against, and not merely beside, the gospel preached 
by Paul. I answer: But Paul not only proves that the rites of 
the law should not be observed, nor is this his whole design; but 
affirms also, that he had delivered to the Galatians the gospel in its 
whole, perfect integrity, so as that whatever was thereto added, 
was false and impious. For the apostle says that the false apostles 
had transferred the Galatians to “another gospel, which,” says he 
in that same chapter, “is not another; but there are some that 
trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ." It was not, 
therefore, another gospel which these false apostles preached, but 
only a corruption and depravation of that gospel which Paul 
preached; and, whereas the apostle had delivered to the Galatians 
that gospel of Christ, wherein our salvation is fully and perfectly 
set forth, these false apostles endeavoured to introduce their legal 
observances, which was a thing both beside and against Paul's 
gospel But the apostle does not use the term against, because 
the false apostles would have denied that it was against that gospel 
which Paul himself had delivered. In order, therefore, to obviate 
this false pretence, the apostle says, ** beside what I preached unto 
you, and ye received :” as if he had said, I taught you nothing of 
the kind; therefore those who introduce such things are to be 
avoided, and by no means to be listened to. Thus it is certain 
that beside suits the apostle's design much better than against. 
Bellarmine's third reason is taken from Rom. xvi. 17, where the 
apostle writes thus: ‘I beseech you, brethren, mark those who 
cause divisions and offences, beside the doctrine which ye have 
learned ;" where, says he, Erasmus translates it, against. I an- 
swer: I confess it, and so does Beza: for whatever is against 
scripture is also beside it; and, conversely also, whatever in our 
holy religion is taught beside the scriptures, is against the scriptures 
too, if it carry with it any notion of necessity, that is, if it be pro- 
posed as a necessary doctrine. Since the apostles delivered abun- 
dantly all necessary things in the scriptures, whatever is urged 
as necessary beside the scriptures is justly deemed contrary to 
them. I confess that zapa may sometimes be conveniently trans- 
lated against, but not in this place.  Bellarmine's fourth reason is 
taken from the authority of the fathers. Of these he brings 
forward Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom, Theophylact, CEcumenius, 
and Augustine. These all, says he, explain “beside” by ‘‘against.” 
I answer, that in religious matters beside is equivalent to against 


XIV. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 627 


the scriptures: but we have already shewn the reason why the 
apostle uses the term beside rather than against, because it suited 
his purpose better. There is no necessity for answering his pa- 
tristic authorities. However, Chrysostom is most plainly for us, 
and against our opponent: for thus he writes upon the present 
passage: “The apostle said not, if they tell you all the contrary, 
or subvert the whole gospel, but even if they preach you any (that 
is, even a slight and minute, even the smallest) thing beside that 
gospel which ye have received, if they shake any portion of it, let 
them be accursed.” And, to make it still more clear that he is upon 
our side, he subjoins: ** Abraham, when he was asked to send 
Lazarus, answered, They have Moses and the prophets; if they 
believe not them, neither will they be persuaded though one rose 
from the dead. Now Christ introduces Abraham speaking thus in 
the parable, to shew that he would rather that more faith should 
be reposed in the scriptures than in even men raised from the dead : 
ver pwv Evy ELPO MEV a£tomio ToT Epas ovrAeT at eivat Tas rypadas. 
And Paul (and when I say Paul, I say Christ, since it is he who 
directed the mind of Paul) prefers the scriptures even to angels de- 
scending out of heaven, «ai ayyeAwy €£ ovpavoU kataawovTwv 
avras mpotiOyor, and that very properly; since angels, however 
great, are but servants and ministers ; whereas the whole scripture 
hath come to us not from servants, but from God the Lord of all." 
Thus it is certain that Chrysostom maintains the perfection of 
scripture, and is on our side against the papists: for in these 
words he subverts both the Jesuit's answers, since he determines 
that the apostle both speaks of the written word of God, and con- 
demns whatever is preached not only against, but beside the 
scriptures. So C&cumenius upon this place, 70 wap’ Oo ógAoi TO 
ócov ÓnToTe jukpov ToU kgpvryparos* “ How small soever it be, let 
him be accursed.” So Theophylact remarks that the apostle does 
not say “contrary to," but “ beside.” 

I come now to Augustine, some of whose words Bellarmine 
cites from his ninety-eighth Tractate upon the gospel of John; 
and the same words are cited also by the Rhemists in their note 
upon this place to the Galatians. There Augustine writes, that the 
apostle said not, * Above what ye have received, but beside what 
ye have recelved!. For had he said the former, he would have 


{1 Nam si illud diceret, sibi ipsi preejudicaret, qui cupiebat venire ad 
Thessalonicences, ut suppleret quze illorum fidei defuerunt. Sed qui supplet, 
quod minus erat addit, non quod inerat tollit. ] 


40—2 


628 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


answered himself by anticipation, who desired to come to the 
Thessalonians that he might supply what was lacking in their faith." 
I answer: This testimony is of no weight against us and our expo- 
sition, because although Paul meant to go to the Thessalonians to 
give them more instruction, yet it was in the same, and not in 
different points. As to the apostle's saying that something was still 
lacking to their faith, I use a distinction. There was something 
lacking to their faith subjectively, not objectively. The apostle had 
delivered to them the whole doctrine, but they had not received it 
all; consequently he desired to come to them again, that they 
might more fully receive the doctrine delivered, and that their faith 
might be rendered more stable. In like manner we also need daily 
fresh instruction, that we may make every day new advances in 
the faith, since our faith is not perfect in this life. Meanwhile 
Augustine does not say that it is only contrary doctrines that are 
condemned by the apostle; for the additional teaching of which he 
speaks may be such as is not beside, but contained in the scrip- 
tures. So much for our third testimony from scripture. Next 
follows the fourth. | 

Now the fourth passage of scripture which we cite against 
traditions 1s contained in the last verse of the twentieth chapter of 
John, and runs thus: * These are written that ye might believe 
that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that beleving ye 
might have life through his name.” It is manifest from these words, 
that all necessary things may be found in those which are written, 
because by these a full and perfect faith may be produced, inasmuch 
as such a faith is capable of procuring eternal life. This interpret- 
ation of ours is supported by the authority of Augustine, Tractat. 
49 in Joan. and de Consensu Evangel. Lib. 1. c. 35, and of Cyril 
upon John, Lib. xir. c. ult. Bellarmine is here upon the rack, 
and turns himself on all sides to evade the difficulty. At last he 
gives five answers, which we will examine in order. 

First, he says that John speaks of Christ's miracles, and asserts 
that miracles numerous enough to prove and persuade us that Christ 
was the Messiah are committed to writing. I answer: Although the 
evangelist does mention miracles in the preceding verse, yet the word 
Ta/UTa, Which he subjoins in this, is to be understood of doctrine 
rather than of miracles. For miracles do not properly produce faith 
in us, but rather confirm and support it when it hath been produced, 
and miracles minister to and win credence for the doctrine. Here, 
therefore, the end of the whole gospel is indicated: for the scope 


XIV. | | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 629 


of the gospel is that we should believe, and so have life eternal. So 
Augustine upon this place, Tractat. 122; so de Lyra; so cardinal 
Hugo; so Jansenius. Augustine says that the end of the book is 
indicated in these words. De Lyra says that in these words the 
utility of this doctrine is pointed out. Cardinal Hugo writes thus: 
* [n these words is declared the end of scripture in general, and of 
this book in particular.” Jansenius in like manner says the end 
and drift of this book are designed in these words. 

Secondly, Bellarmine answers that John speaks only of the things 
written by himself; and that therefore if these are sufficient, the 
other scriptures will be superfluous. I answer: If the things written 
by John are such as that we may by them reach faith and salvation, 
then much more may we reach faith and salvation by all the books 
and the whole canon of the scriptures. Besides, we may give a 
far correcter explanation of this passage, if we say that John speaks 
here not only of his own book, but of all the books of the new 
Testament: for he had seen them all, and this gospel was written 
last; and even though perhaps some of the books were published 
after it, yet it does not thence follow that all necessary things were 
not then written. But when he says, “ These are written that ye 
might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God,” he is not 
to be understood to assert that faith or salvation could in no way 
be received without these scriptures, For faith and life may be 
obtained from the old Testament; and those who had only the old 
Testament were believers and in a state of salvation: but by this 
present way we reach faith and salvation with greater clearness and 
plainness, in a better and surer method. These writings of John 
are therefore necessary, like the other books of the new Testament, 
only upon the preliminary supposition that God chose to teach us 
now under the gospel in a clearer way, and afford us most manifest 
evidence of the redemption which hath been wrought. 

Thirdly, Bellarmine pretends that John does not affirm that these 
by themselves are sufficient to salvation, but that these and other 
things which have been written are referred and subordinated to the 
end of producing faith, and so putting us in possession of life. I 
answer: Seripture is not only one of those means which relate to 
salvation, but the entire and sole medium, the perfect and complete 
mediüm, because it produces a perfect faith. For that faith which 
brings salvation is perfect; and consequently the medium whereby 
that faith is produced is also perfect. An argument may be framed 
thus: All things necessary to salvation are contained in believing 
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Now all things requisite 


630 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


for our believing that Jesus is the Christ are written: therefore all 
things necessary to salvation are contained in the scriptures. 
Fourthly, Bellarmine endeavours to evade the testimonies of 
Augustine and Cyril. He says, in the first place, that those fathers 
speak only of the miracles of Christ, or, at most, of his words and 
actions. I answer: This is enough. For if John hath sufficiently 
written all Christ's sayings, then he hath sufficiently for our pur- 
poses committed his whole doctrine to writing. He says, in the 
second place, that they do not affirm, upon the evidence of this 
passage, that all things are sufficiently written which are absolutely 
necessary to salvation; but that all things which the evangelist 
deemed fit to be written are written sufficiently. I answer: This 
is surely a ridiculous fiction, which he hath learned from Canus, 
Lib. m1. c. ult. However, if we consult Augustine and Cyril, we 
shall easily perceive the falsehood of this interpretation. Augus- 
tine says (Tract. 49. in Joan.) that “those things which seemed 
sufficient for the salvation of believers were chosen to be committed 
to writing!;" and does not say that what was written was suffi- 
ciently written. Therefore all things are sufficiently written, which 
are sufficient for our salvation and necessary to it. The same 
father (de Consensu Evangel. Lib. 1. c. ult.) writes thus: ** What- 
soever he (i.e. Christ) wished that we should read concerning his 
words or works, he enjoined the task of committing to writing upon 
the apostles, as if they were his hands." Perhaps they will seize 
upon the expression, * What he wished that we should read." 
But this makes signally against themselves. For their traditions 
are written somewhere, although they are called unwritten. Now 
Augustine says Christ committed to his apostles the writing of all 
those things which he wished us to read. Therefore he gave no 
commandment either to write or read more traditions. For if he 
had wished them to be either written or read, who should have 
written them rather than the apostles who wrote the rest? or 
where should they have been read rather than in the canonical 
books and writings ? Cyril upon John, Lib. xn. c. ult., says that 
those things are written ** which the writers deemed sufficient both 
for morals and for doctrine." Two things offer themselves for 
consideration in this testimony : first, that these words should be 
understood not of the books of John only, but of the rest also; 
therefore he says, “which the writers,” that is the apostles, 


[! Electa sunt...quse scriberentur, que saluti credentium sufficere cre- 
debantur.— Opp. T. m1. col. 2163. Paris. 1837.— The other references are 
eited more largely below, chap. 17.] 


xiv.] | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 631 


deemed sufficient: secondly, that the things which are written are 
sufficient both for morals and doctrine. 

Fifthly, Bellarmine answers, that all things are sufficiently written 
in the general, but not in the partieular; because we are commanded 
in the scriptures to hold traditions: where we have a recurrence of 
the same subterfuge as he had previously used. I answer: If all 
things are thus only written in the general, why, I beseech you, was 
so much written? A few things would have been sufficient, from which 
the rest might have been taken. Yea, this one single sentence might 
have been enough, “ Believe what the church teaches:" just as he 
had before said, that his traditions were, in the general, enjoined by 
Paul in those words, ** Hold the traditions," so as to leave nothing 
more to be desired. Augustine however, as ye have heard but 
now, determines far otherwise: * Whether the subject be Christ, or 
his church, or any other matter appertaining to our faith or life, 
I say not, Though we, who are in no wise comparable to him who 
said, Though we; but assuredly I do say what he added in that 
place, Though an angel from heaven preach any thing beside what 
ye have received in the scriptures of the law and the gospel, let him 
be accursed.” Therefore all things are particularly, and that too 
with the fullest sufficiency, consigned to writing. Andradius in his 
Orthodox Explications, Lib. rr. gives a different answer, but one so 
ridiculous and foolish that Bellarmine did not choose to make use of 
it. He says that Augustine and Cyril write, that those things which 
are written are sufficient, not because the evangelists have com- 
prised all the mysteries of our faith in this small volume, but 
because those most holy persons had committed to writing * what 
might be sufficient to establish the credit of all the other things 
which were not contained in written documents.” Thus, if we be- 
lieve Andradius, these fathers meant that the evangelists wrote, not 
what was sufficient for our faith (which however Augustine expressly 
affirms), but what was sufficient to settle the credit of traditions; — 
an assertion destitute of all reasonable support! For how can these 
things which are committed to writing establish the credit of those 
which are nowhere written? Augustine says besides, that the 
apostles wrote by divine authority whatever Christ * wished us to 
read concerning either his words or works." Andradius is more- 
over at variance with himself; since, after having first said that ‘most 
holy persons" had written what sufficed to establish the credit of — 
other things, he so far forgets himself afterwards as to maintain that 
Cyril spoke here “of the gospel of John only.” We have said 
enough upon this testimony. 


N 


632 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


I come now to the celebrated passage of the apostle which is con- 
tained in 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17: “ All scripture is given by inspiration 
of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and 
for instruction in righteousness ; that the man of God may be perfect, 
throughly furnished for every good work." I will not here dispute 
whether the apostle speaks here only of the books of the old, or of 
the books of both Testaments. My opinion is that these words 
refer to the new Testament also: for although the books of the new 
Testament had not yet been published when Timothy was a child, 
yet some of them had already seen the light when the apostle wrote 
these words. However, if he spake only of the books of the old 
Testament, then our argument may be pressed stil more closely. 
For if the books of the old Testament are of themselves sufficient 
for all the ends here enumerated, then much rather do the scrip- 
tures of the old and new Testaments together contain a full body 
of doctrine. But I do not choose to moot this question; though I 
think that this is a general sentence referring to the whole scripture. 
From this passage we draw the following conclusion: The whole scrip- 
ture is useful for the end of rendering the man of God perfect for 
every good work : therefore, the scriptures are sufficient for all things 
necessary for us. Our opponent hath a twofold reply : first, by con- 
ceding a certain sort of sufficiency ; secondly, by denying that suffi- 
ciency which we maintain. Let us examine these replies. 

First, he says, it may be replied that the scriptures do, in 
a certain sense, sufficiently instruct and perfect a man of God, 
forasmuch as many things are “expressly” contained in scrip- 
ture, and the same scripture teaches us also whence the “rest 
may be derived." We have already answered this reply, by shew- 
ing that the scripture cannot be called sufficient only because it 
sufficiently delivers some necessary things in the general, and indi- 
cates the source whence the rest may be derived ; because then 
there would have been no need that the Holy Spirit should have 
published so many books of scripture. The Decalogue, the Creed, 
and the Lord's Prayer would have been enough, and there would 
have been no necessity.for so many pieces. But the Holy Spirit 
willed that we should be most fully instructed, and therefore caused 
so many books to be published, and referred us to the scriptures 
wherein a clearly sufficient explication of all parts of our faith is to 
be found. This reply therefore was an absurd one, Yet this is 
the only one which Canus had to give, Lib. ii. c. ult. Bellarmine, 
however, was not satisfied with it. Indeed, the second epistle to the 
Thessalonians contains some things expressly, and refers us to the 


xiv.] : QUESTION THE SIXTH. 633 


source whence the rest may be derived, as the papists themselves 
confess, when it says, “ Hold the traditions." Therefore, if this 
reply were sound, that epistle would have been sufficient. The 
same might be said of the book of Ruth, Joshua, and others. Bel- 
larmine, therefore, was obliged to seek another reply. 

Secondly, then, Bellarmine denies that sufficiency which we 
maintain, and that for three reasons. / rst, he remarks that the 
apostle does not say ‘the whole," but “all” scripture. Therefore 
the apostle ascribes his commendation not only to the whole scrip- 
ture, but to all, that is, to each several book. Every part of scrip- 
ture, then, and each several book, must be perfect, if he speak of 
such a perfection of scripture. So Stapleton, Lib. xu. e. 8, ex- 
pounds this place not of the “whole,” but of ‘every " scripture. 
I answer: “ All” in this place is equivalent to “the whole,” and 
is frequently so used; as, “all” life is full of wretchedness, that 
is, “the whole” of life. So Coloss. ii. 9, “In him dwelleth wav 
TO 7Anpwua', ‘all the fulness’ of the Godhead ;" that is, “the 
whole.” So 2 Thessalon. i. 11, * To fulfil zácav evdokiav,” that 
is, “the whole.” And frequently in scripture we read “all Israel," 
meaning the whole house of Israel. So Luke xxi. 31, was o Aaos, 
* the whole people :” and Ephes. iv. 16, wav to copa, “ the whole 
body : " and Matth. iii. 5, záca 9 ‘lovdaia kai vaca 7 TEpLX wpos 
TOU "Iopóavov, “the whole of Judwa and the whole region, " &c. 
Acts xx. 27, Paul says that he had declared «cav 53v BovXiv 
Tov Ocov, “the whole counsel of God." Rom. iv. 16, zavri te 
omeppatt, “to the whole seed.” And that this place must needs 
be so understood, is manifest; for otherwise each several Psalm, 
yea, every chapter, every verse, every word, would be useful for 
all these purposes: for these are all parts of scripture, all paca: 
Ocovvevoroi. But this the papists do not concede. Our inter- 
pretation may also be confirmed from the preceding context ; where 
the apostle shews that he is speaking of the whole body of scripture. 
For Paul says above, that Timothy was skilled in the scriptures 
from a boy. Nowit was not in only some one part of scripture, or in 
some single book that he was conversant, but in the whole scripture. 
The same may be gathered also from what follows: for Paul says 
that “Scripture is useful for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, 
for instruction in righteousness:;" now this great ability of scrip- 
ture must be gained from the whole of it, not from any one book or 


[! The reader, however, needs hardly to be reminded that was with the 
article is a very different thing from was without the article. There could be 
no doubt of the meaning of raca 7 ypady.] 


634 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


part of a book. So Dionysius Carthusianus, no bad expositor: 
** All, that is, the whole canonical scripture.” Bellarmine’s pretence, 
that all these uses may be found in each several book, is absurd. 
He proves, in the case of the second epistle of John, which is the 
shortest, that all these things may be found there, because we read 
there that ** Christ is the Son of God,” which appertains to doctrine ; 
that ‘antichrists are in the world," which appertains to reproof: 
In the same epistle also the apostle enjoins us **to love one another,” 
which appertains to instruction; and says also, * Take heed unto 
yourselves that we lose not what we have wrought,” which apper- 
tains to correction. Now he ought to have shewn that all these 
things were contained in each particle and member of the books, if 
he meant to defend his interpretation. Besides, although some 
things which serve all these purposes may be found in each of the 
books of holy scripture, yet not so as to “ perfect” (é€aprion) the 
man of God. Secondly, Bellarmine disputes thus: When Paul wrote 
these words, the gospel of John, the Apocalypse, and other books 
also, were not written: therefore, he cannot be understood to speak 
of the whole canon of scripture. I answer: The apostle speaks 
of the canon which was then extant, and contained a full and 
perfect body of doctrine. For the books written afterwards do 
not prove that that body was not perfect, but only that what we 
now have is more perfect. For the additional books do not add 
any thing to the doctrine of scripture, but only to the explication 
of the doctrine previously delivered. And the apostle speaks 
not only of those books, but in general of the whole scripture. 
Since, therefore, these books have been added to the body of scrip- 
ture, this judgment appertains by a parity of reason to them also. 
Finally, Bellarmine collects what he desires from the reasoning 
of the apostle. The apostle, says he, argues from the universal 
to the particular. All scripture is useful: therefore the old Tes- 
tament is useful. I answer: The apostle does not argue from the 
universal to the particular, but from the efficient and the final 
cause. From the efficient thus: All scripture is divinely inspired; 
therefore do thou read the scriptures from which thou mayst learn | 
divine wisdom. From the end, thus: Scripture is profitable for 
many purposes; therefore do thou read the scriptures, that thou 
mayst derive these many and great advantages from the study 
of them. The old version (which however Bellarmine follows) 
requires emendation: Omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata utilis 
est; whereas it is in the Greek, waca ypady Oeomvevocos, kai 
wpérdmuos. And although we must allow that when Timothy was 


XIV. | | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 635 


a child, some books of the new Testament were not extant, yet 
when this epistle was written, and Timothy now grown up, many 
were extant and in the hands of pious persons, as namely, the 
gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and all the epistles of Paul; for 
this was the last epistle which Paul wrote a short time before he 
departed out of this life. What! did not this apostle commend 
these scriptures also to Timothy? Undoubtedly he did. 

Now, after obviating the sophistry of Bellarmine, let us proceed 
to confirm our own argument, which we state thus: The whole 
scripture is useful for all these purposes: therefore it is perfect and 
sufficient, and contains all necessary things. Bellarmine, however, 
laughs at reasoning which concludes sufficiency from utility. So 
the Rhemists upon this place, and the defender of the censure 
against William Chark!. With this reply they seem to stop our 
mouths; yet is it a mere subterfuge. For we do not argue that 
scripture is sufficient because it is useful; but we prove its per- 
fection and sufficiency from the magnitude of that utility which 
may be obtained from scripture. For although everything that is 
useful is not sufficient, yet if all sufficient things are useful, then, 
conversely, some useful things are sufficient, and some kind of 
usefulness is sufficient and complete. Now, such is the usefulness 
mentioned in this place: and that it is such, is clear from the 
words and the design of the apostle; since he speaks of such an 
usefulness of scripture as proves the scriptures to be sufficient also. 
For so, in the words immediately preceding, the apostle testifies of 
the scriptures that they are able codica, that is, ‘to make a man 
wise’ unto salvation. Therefore they are sufficient. For wisdom 
contains the perfection of knowledge. Now, from the scriptures 
everything may be derived which can render men wise: therefore 
all things requisite to perfect knowledge are contained in the scrip- 
tures. Neither Bellarmine, nor the Rhemists, nor the censor and 
defender of the censure above cited, nor (as far as I am aware) 
any papist, hath touched this argument: The scriptures teach perfect 
wisdom: therefore the scriptures are sufficient for our salvation. 

Besides, the apostle illustrates this utility by saying that the 
scriptures are useful for all purposes; which is assuredly a sufficient 
utility. But how is this proved, that the scriptures are useful for 
all purposes? By this, that in the four heads here enumerated 
are contained and included all things requisite to our salvation. 


(1 W. Chark was one of the disputants against Campian in the conference 
held in the Tower, Sept. 27, 1580.—Strype, Ann. Vol. rt. Book ii. c. 22. p. 
646. Life of Parker, App. 74.] 


636 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


What we are obliged to do is, either to teach truth, or to refute 
errors, or to direct life aright, or to reprove vice. The papists 
themselves concede that all things are comprised in these four 
points, since the pastors of the church are engaged in nothing else 
besides these. Asducxadia denotes sound doctrine; éderyyos, the 
refutation of false opinions; waideia, the godly direction of life; 
erravop9wois, the correction of manners. Scripture is profitable 
for all these purposes. Yes, you may say,—but not sufficient. 
Yea, I affirm, profitable and sufficiently profitable; which is even 
still more evident from what follows. For he subjoins, * that the 
man of God may be perfect (aprios 5), thoroughly furnished (é&np- 
Tiopevos) unto every good work." The phrase, “man of God,” 
is taken here in the same sense as in 1 Tim. vi. 11. It denotes 
a minister or pastor, as Melchior Canus confesses, Lib. mm. c. ult. 
Hence, therefore, we may reason thus: The scriptures render a 
minister thoroughly furnished unto every good work: therefore 
they are sufficient. For if a minister can derive from the scrip- 
tures all things which are necessary for his function, then the 
people also may find in the scriptures all things necessary for sal- 
vation: for nothing is necessary to be believed by the people, 
which it is not necessary for the minister to teach and deliver. The 
measure of doctrine in the minister and of faith in the people is 
one and the same: so much as the pastor ought to teach, just so 
much, and no more, the people ought to know and believe. Now, 
he is called aptcos, or perfect, who lacks nothing. The scriptures 
make a pastor perfect. Therefore they place him in a condition in 
which he is in need of nothing more. But, if there be no deficiency 
in the pastor, then there can be no deficiency in the scriptures, 
which have rendered him thus complete. And although the old 
translator hath rendered efypticuévov by instructum, yet he un- 
doubtedly means perfectly furnished. So in Matth. xxi. 16, where 
Christ cites a passage from the eighth Psalm, éx otouatos vymtov 
kat OnraCovtwy katypTiow aivov, the old interpreter translates it, 
Ex ore infantium et lactentium perfecisti laudem. So in Luke 
vi. 40, where the disciple who shall be as his Lord is called e&yp- - 
tiapevos, the old interpreter renders it by perfectus. The meaning 
of the term is precisely the same in the present passage. . Since 
then the scripture is needful for these four purposes, since it renders 
the man of God perfect, since it teaches a wisdom perfect to the 
end of salvation, it must needs itself be perfect and sufficient. No 
papist ever hath or will frame a full and pertinent answer to this 
argument. Chrysostom sheds some light upon this reasoning of 


XIV. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 637 


ours in his commentary upon this place, Homil. 9. He says that 
Paul commended the scriptures to Timothy, because he knew that 
he himself must shortly die, and that this would plunge Timothy 
in the deepest affliction. He therefore comforts him in these 
words, commending to him the scriptures as capable of standing in 
the place of all other masters. So solicitous was Paul to remove 
this anxiety from Timothy’s mind. Chrysostom subjoins that it is 
as if Paul had said: ** Thou hast scripture for a master instead of 
me; thence thou canst learn whatever thou wouldest know :" az 
€unoU ($uoi) tas ypadas éxeis" ef Te Bovrer paberv, exeiÜev 
Ovvijon. Whence it may be inferred, that all things can be learned 
from the scriptures which could have been learned from the apostles 
if they had still lived. Jerome, explaining those words, “ which 
are able to make thee wise,” &c., says that the scriptures are not 
sufficient without faith. I grant it; but in saying this he shews that 
they are sufficient if one believes them. Even papists themselves 
do not blame this interpretation. One Augustinus Villavicentius!, 
who wrote four books upon the method of studying theology, which 
are really deserving of being perused by all students of theology, 
hath, Lib. 1. e. 3, these words: * The scriptures can even by 
themselves instruct us to salvation.” However, those books were 
really written by Hyperius, and Villavicentius says in the title of the 
work, that they were so corrected by him as to allow of their being 
read by catholics without danger; yet he made no change in these 
words, although they make most decisively against the papists. 

I come now to another argument, the last of those touched upon 
by Bellarmine, and derived from various passages of scripture 
wherein traditions are condemned: as, Matth. xv. 6, ** Ye have 
made the commandment of God of none effect by your traditions ;" 
and the words of Isaiah, c. 29, alleged by Christ in that same 
chapter, “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the 
commandments of men:" and Galat. i. 14,2 where Paul says. that, 
before his conversion, he was “zealous for the traditions of his 


(! Whitaker has mistaken the name of this author, as appears from 
Placcius (De Scriptor. Pseudon. p. 609); which reference I owe to the kind- 
ness of my friend Mr Gibbings. The title of the work referred to is— 
De recte formando studio theologico libri quatuor; ae de formandis sacris 
concionibus libri tres: omnes collecti et restituti per fratrem Laur. a Villa- 
vincentio, Xerezamum, Doctorem Theologum, Augustinianum, Eremitani, 
nune denuo diligentissime correcti et emendati.—Colon. 1575. See the 
Literary History of the Book in Bayle, Art. Hyrertus. ] 

[? In the text the reference is by a mistake to verse 20.] 


638 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


elders.” From these and the like places, we reason thus: Christ 
and the apostles condemn traditions: therefore, they are not to 
be received; and consequently scripture is sufficient. Bellarmine 
hath but one reply, namely, that Christ and the apostles did not 
condemn those traditions which the Jews had received from Moses 
and the prophets, but those which they had received from certain 
later persons, whereof some were idle, and some impious. This he 
confirms by the authority of Epiphanius, Irenzeus, and Jerome. 

I answer: Firstly, it is false that the Jews received any traditions 
from Moses and the prophets. He himself does not prove they did, 
and even some papists (as he owns) determine the contrary way. 
Finally, it is evident from the scriptures: for Christ says, ‘ Search 
the scriptures,’ not tradition; and Abraham says, * They have 
Moses and the prophets, let them hear them.” Now by Moses and 
the prophets the scriptures are meant, as in Luke xxiv. 27. There 
is no mention in scripture of these traditions: the scriptures say 
not a single word about them: there were, therefore, none.  Be- 
sides, who were the guardians of these traditions? They must needs 
say, the priests. But they had corrupted even the scripture itself: 
much more then tradition. Besides, to what part of the law did 
they relate? for to some part of it they must have had reference. 
Not to the moral; for that was perfectly delivered in the decalogue, 
and oe in the other books: nor to the ceremonial; for 
the ceremonial law is also perfectly delivered in the books of Moses, 
wherein not even the minutest ceremony is omitted. Now although 
the explication of these ceremonies is nowhere contained in the 
scriptures, yet that is nothing to the purpose: for it is manifest 
from the scriptures that the death of the Messiah, and the other 
benefits which are derived from him to us, were signified and 
declared by these rites. The judicial law is not concerned in the 
present question, regarding, as it did, the mere external polity, and 
not faith and religion, which form the subject of this dispute. This 
therefore is irrelevant to the question before us. Further, let them 
now produce, if they can, any of these traditions. They cannot. 
Therefore they have all perished, while the scriptures meanwhile 
have been preserved entire. 

Secondly, when he says that Christ condemns vain and impious 
traditions, I allow the truth of that assertion: but it does not thence 
follow that he does not condemn the popish traditions ; since (as shall 
appear hereafter) some of them are idle, and some pernicious. 

Thirdly, I say that not only are impious traditions condemned 


xiv.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 639 


by Christ, but all which do not rest upon the authority of scrip- 
iure. For those frequent washings of the Pharisees, mentioned in 
(Matth. xv. and Mark vii) who used to wash themselves, their ves- 
sels, and their couches so diligently, were not openly impious or 
pernicious, if they had not drawn after them an impiety of another 
kind: yea, they seem to carry a sort of piety upon the face of 
them; for the reason of this custom was their fear of having met 
with an unclean person, and so contracted some impurity. Surely 
this tradition hath a more specious reason, and borders more nearly 
upon piety, than most of the popish traditions. 

Fourthly, when Christ objects the commandment of God, and 
opposes the scriptures to tradition, it is plain that he condemns all 
unwritten traditions. 

Fifthly, if the authors of these traditions had lived only a 
short time before Christ, he would not have called them the 
traditions of the elders, trav wpecBuTépwv. This shews plainly 
that these traditions were not very recent, but sufficiently ancient 
in their date. And Christ by citing Isaiah indicates that he is not 
speaking of a certain sort of modern traditions, but of all unwritten 
traditions in general. Undoubtedly therefore Christ condemns 
all doctrines which are the decrees of men, such as the papists 
have introduced in great numbers into the church,—the distinction 
of days, places, persons, meats, and such like; all which we pro- 
nounce pernicious, on account of these three evils following: first, 
because they draw and lead us away from the scriptures, as if 
they were insufficient, and contained not all necessary things; 
whereas Christ and the apostles always remand us to the scriptures; 
secondly, because those who are devoted to them place some of 
their hope of salvation in them, which must needs be displeasing to 
God; and thirdly, because those who are occupied in keeping such 
things, omit, neglect and despise the study of true godliness, and 
apply themselves wholly to some external rites and exercises devised 
and invented by themselves. The truth of this is witnessed by 
experience in the case both of the Jews and papists. For in the 
papacy the splendour of those works which human rashness and 
superstition have invented hath eclipsed those works of charity 
which are truly pleasing to the Deity. 

Sixthly, as to the fathers here cited by Bellarmine, there is no 
necessity for making any reply to them, since we have shewn above 
that all unwritten traditions are condemned by Christ. I too can 
bring forward fathers. See Cyprian, Ep. 63 and 74, where this 
testimony of Isaiah is plainly used to prove that nothing should be 


640 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


received that is not based upon the authority of scripture. Elsewhere 
also he uses these testimonies for the same purpose. So Chrysostom, 
Hom. 52 in Matth., lays down the following points: first, that the 
priest and ordinary pastors made many innovations ; therefore those 
who hold the office and succession of priests are not always faithful: 
secondly, that in doing so they transgressed the precept, Deut. iv., 
to make no additions to, or diminution from, the word of God; 
therefore those who make any change or innovation other than 
the Lord hath appointed in the scriptures, add to, or detract from, 
the word of God: thirdly, that this is done not only by those 
who introduce things contrary to the scriptures, but also by those 
who enjoin things not contrary to them; for he says, “that 
tradition was not contrary to the law,” that is, openly and in every 
respect, but only consequentially. Those who will not eat without 
washing their hands first, do nothing simply contrary to any divine 
precept; but to make any part of godliness consist in this rite, or 
to be more solicitous about this precept than about God’s command- 
ments, this is to make the law of God of none effect, and to incur 
his severe displeasure. Now the papists have run into still more 
intolerable errors in this matter than the Jews of old, since their 
religion is wholly occupied in observing and performing not those 
things which Christ sanctioned and enjoined, but those which man’s 
boldness and curiosity have devised. For example, those who are 
esteemed religious amongst the papists observe the rules of their 
founders far more punctiliously than the commands of God: the 
truth of which remark hath been now for a long time no secret to 
all the world. 

Thus far we have defended those testimonies of scripture which 
Bellarmine endeavours, but ineffectually, to wrest from our hands. 





CHAPTER XV. 


WHEREIN OTHER TESTIMONIES OF SCRIPTURE AGAINST TRADITIONS, 
NOT NOTICED BY BELLARMINE, ARE EXPLAINED. 


I win, now add others which he hath not touched. Did Bel- 
larmine suppose that we had no more testimonies of scripture ? 
I will now then set forth those which he hath omitted, and draw 
arguments from the several passages. 

The first is taken from Ps. xix. 8, where these words are read: 
“The law of the Lord is entire, and giveth wisdom to babes" By 


xv. ] : QUESTION THE SIXTH. 641 


the law the prophet means the old Testament, or the doctrine deli- 
vered in the old Testament. This the Rabbins themselves per- 
ceived, as is plain from the commentary of David Kimchi upon Ps. exix. 
The term, the Law, is used thus also in scripture itself, as in Rom. 
iii. 19, John xv. 25; and the usage is so established, that the name 
of the law is given even to the gospel, Rom. iii. 27. In this place 
two attributes of the law are explained, which shew it to be per- 
fect: in the first place, it is called entire; in the second, it is said 
to give wisdom to babes.  T'emüimah! is by Tremellius, Bucer, and 
Vatablus rendered integra; by Pagninus, Arias Montanus, and Calvin, 
perfecta. The term denotes that nothing is lacking in the old 
Testament, but that in it is contained a full, perfect, and absolute 
body of doctrine; for the books which were published afterwards 
added no new dogma. The old translator renders it immaculata, 
incorrectly. Yet the censor before alluded to abuses this transla- 
tion to his own purpose: he concedes that the law of God is un- 
defiled, but denies that it is perfect. However, that it is perfect 
appears plainly from the other attribute, in that it is said to give 
wisdom to babes or infants, ——that is, to bestow divine knowledge 
and wisdom upon those who had no understanding previously. 
Now wisdom contains the height and perfection of knowledge. 
From this place I argue thus: If the doctrine of the old Testament 
was thus perfect and complete, so as fully to furnish the students 
of it with all the parts of true wisdom, then much more is the 
doctrine of both Testaments perfect. The antecedent is true, and 
therefore also the consequent. 

The second place is taken from Luke i. 3, 4, where Luke in 
his preface writes thus: “It seemed good to me also, having had 
perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto 
thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know 
the certainty, 75v ac $aX«tav, of those things wherein thou hast been 
orally instructed.” Theophilus had been previously instructed in 
the christian religion, and taught concerning Christ, (as appears 
from the words, wepi wy KxatnyyOns;) yet Luke thought himself 
obliged to write to him the same things as he had learned: and 
why? that he might perceive 75v ac@adeiav, the sure and ascer- 
tained certainty of those things. Out of scripture therefore there 
is no, or no great, “certainty.” From these words the following 


[| DM the feminine of DOF which Gesenius translates in this 
place, perfectus, absolutus.] 


41 


[ WHITAKER.] 


642 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


argument may be drawn: Ifit was needful to Theophilus, to give 
him adequate certainty, that those things which he had before 
heard and learned should be reduced to writing; then all things uni- 
versally which the apostles taught are written. For we are bound 
to have a certain knowledge of all things necessary. Now that 
was necessary to Theophilus. Therefore all necessary points are in 
writing. And if it was necessary to Theophilus, who had heard the 
apostles themselves, to have what he had learned from them re- 
duced to writing, in order that he might know the full truth and 
certainty of their teaching; then this must be deemed stil more 
necessary for us, and the churches of subsequent time. The former 
is true: therefore also the latter. 

The third place is taken from Luke xvi. 29, where Abraham 
says to the glutton, ** They have Moses and the prophets; let them 
hear them." It is plain enough that all the scriptures of the old 
Testament are meant by Moses and the prophets. And when he 
says that these should be listened to, he indicates that a perfect 
body of teaching may be found in them. This, says Stapleton, Lib. 
xu. c. 8, does not follow: for it is one thing, says he, to hear 
Moses and the prophets, and quite another to hear nothing else. 
By the latter the new Testament would be excluded as superfluous. 
I answer: In the first place, the command to hear them denotes 
that they only should be listened to; because this teaching obtained 
from Moses and the prophets is opposed to all other revelations and 
visions. The glutton desired that his brethren should be so admo- 
nished and instrueted as to be enabled to obtain eternal life, and 
escape those punishments wherewith he was then tormented. Abra- 
ham rejoins, * They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear 
them:" as if he had said, If they hear them, they can from them learn 
and know all those things by which they may shun this death and these 
torments. Itis as much as to say, The teaching of those books which 
Moses and the prophets have written is perfect; there is no need 
of seeking other masters or monitors. Otherwise Abraham would 
not have answered pertinently to the glutton’s sense and meaning. 
Secondly, because when the glutton still pressed his petition and - 
said, ** Nay, father Abraham, but if one went unto them from the 
dead, they will repent ;”’ Abraham replies, “If they hear not 
Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one 
rose from the dead.” In which words he implies that those who 
will not be satisfied with the teaching of scripture, can be persuaded 
by no teaching at all, Thirdly, when Abraham says, axovcatwoap, 


XV. | | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 643 


“Jet them hear them," he means them “alone;” just as when God 
from heaven orders us to hear his Son Christ, Matth. xvii 5, 
‘Hear him," he means that Christ should be heard alone. So 
Cyprian, Ep. 63, expressly infers from that place in Matthew, that 
Christ only should be listened to!. In Deut. x. 20, we are com- 
manded to worship God, and serve him: Christ, explaining that 
place, Matth. iv. 10, properly added the word “only.” So in this 
passage, “let them hear them,” means, let them hear them “only.” 
As to his objection, that this would make the new Testament super- 
fluous, I answer, firstly, that the new Testament was not then pub- 
lished ; secondly, that these scriptures and traditions do not stand 
upon the same grounds; thirdly, the gospel only explains Moses and 
the prophets: but this exposition is not like a mere commentary, 
being inspired and credible upon its own authority. De Lyra gives no 
bad explanation of this passage in the following words: * They have 
Moses, who taught moral and practical things: they have the pro- 
phets, who taught mysteries and points of faith; and these are sufficient 
for salvation. Therefore he subjoins, ‘ Let them hear them.?" No 
words can be plainer. Jansenius, in his Commentary on the Evan- 
gelists?, c. 97, says that all which we are required to know concerning 
a future life may be learned from the scriptures. This is enough; 
though it is not this alone which is sufficiently taught in scripture: 
for the glutton did not merely desire that his brethren should 
know this, but also the means of escaping those penalties. How- 
ever, upon this admission, it is at least not necessary to believe 
either purgatory, or Limbus Patrum, or Limbus puerorum : for 
these they determine to be traditions. Now Jansenius says that 
we may learn from the scriptures all that we need to know con- 
cerning the condition of the future life. From this place, I draw 
the following syllogism : If those who wish to know any thing 
necessary to salvation are referred to the scriptures, then the scrip- 
tures contain the whole of saving doctrine. The antecedent is true, 
and therefore the consequent. 

The fourth place is taken from Luke xxiv. 25 and 27. Christ, 
in verse 25, blames the disciples for being slow *'to believe all that 


[! Et quod Christus debeat solus audiri, Pater etiam de ccelo contestatur, 
dicens.... Ipsum audite.—p. 155, ed. Fell. Amstel. 1691. 

[2 Habent Mosen, qui docuit moralia et agenda: habent prophetas, qui 
docuerunt mystica et credenda; et ista sufficiunt ad salutem: ideo sequitur, 
Audiant illos.] 

[3 Louvain, 1571; together with his Harmony.] 


41—2 


644 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ CH. 


the prophets have spoken.” But where can those things be found? 
This appears from verse 27. There it follows: “ Beginning at 
Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scrip- 
tures the things concerning himself.” Hence we frame the following 
argument: If all the things that the prophets spoke may be found 
in the scriptures, then may those also which the apostles spoke be 
found in the scriptures also. The first is true: therefore also the 
second. The force of the consequence is manifest. For the same 
reason which impelled the prophets to commit all they said to writ- 
ing, led the apostles also to take a similar course. For if the pro- 
phets wrote all that they spoke, why should we not suppose that 
the apostles and evangelists, proceeding with the same prudence, 
governed by the same Spirit, and having the same end in view, 
committed likewise to writing the sum of that doctrine which they 
delivered to the churches? The same judgment should be passed 
where the cases are the same. And hence those are refuted, who 
dream of the existence of some unwritten prophetic traditions. For 
Luke makes all that the prophets spake to be comprised in the 
scriptures. Therefore, there were no unwritten traditions of the 
prophets. Therefore, there were no unwritten traditions of the 
apostles. The reason is precisely the same. If the ancient church 
had every thing in scripture, the christian church likewise hath 
every thing in scripture. The antecedent is plain; therefore also 
the consequent. Otherwise God provided better for the Jews than 
for us. 

The fifth place is taken from John v. 39, where Christ says, 
* Search the scriptures.” The Jews read the scriptures, but did 
not understand them aright. Christ therefore exhorts them to give 
more diligent attention to the search. He adds as a reason, “ For 
in them ye think that ye have eternal life.’ And they thought so 
truly, nor does Christ blame that opinion, So Psalm cxix. 2, 
“Blessed are they who ‘search’ his testimonies!.” If felicity 
and salvation may be derived from the scriptures, then every thing 
is contained in the scriptures. So Psalmi, “ Blessed is the man 
who meditates in the law of the Lord day and night.” If the 
Jews could have made a right use of the scriptures, they would 


[! The quotation is from the Vulgate, “Beati qui scrutantur testimonia 
ejus ;" which, as usual, follows the LXX. who have, oí é£epevvóvres. But the 
Hebrew word is "33 , rightly translated in the English version, “who keep.” 
However, the radical idea is to watch or look at narrowly i which might yield 
the thought of searching, if there were evidence of such an usage.] 


XV. | QUESTION THE SIXTH, 645 


have found life in them. And on this account Christ exhorts 
them to search the scriptures. From this place I reason thus: 
If by searching the scriptures we can find all things requisite to 
salvation and eternal life, then all things necessary are written. Be- 
sides, if this benefit could have been obtained from the scriptures 
of the old Testament, then much more certainly may the same 
benefits be now obtained, after the addition of the scriptures of the 
new Testament. 

The sixth place is taken from Acts i. 1, where Luke writes 
thus: “The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all 
that Jesus began both to do and to teach," &c. Now whatsoever 
things concerning Christ are necessary to be known, are contained 
under these two heads, namely, the sayings and the acts of Christ ; 
on which account Luke says in the beginning of his gospel, that he 
had made himself perfect master of them all, and committed them 
to writing. From this passage we argue thus: If all things that 
Jesus said and did are written, then all things which necessity 
requires us to know concerning Christ are written. Now the first 
is true; therefore also the second. Here perhaps some one may 
object, Did he really write all? Nay, he hath omitted many 
things written by Matthew and the rest, as the story of the Magi, 
the cruelty of Herod, &c. Besides, John says that if all things 
were written, the whole world could not contain so many books. 
What then? Are those things superfluous, which are written by 
the other evangelists? I answer: Nothing less. But if we had 
only the gospel of Luke or of Matthew, we should be content with 
it, and that one would be sufficient. Nevertheless, the rest are not 
therefore superfluous: first, because God willed that these things 
should not be written by only a single author, in order that our 
faith should stand upon the firmer evidence; secondly, because he 
willed that those things which are written by one with some 
obscurity, should be more clearly treated by another, so that we 
might thus have not only sufficient, but most abundant instruction. 
Luke did not write all things absolutely that Jesus said and did, 
but the chief and most necessary things (as even the Rhemists 
themselves explain the words), and what might be sufficient. And 
so our argument will be perfectly conclusive, as follows: If all the 
chief and necessary things are found either in one, or more of the 
evangelists, then, much rather, in the whole scripture. Now the 
first is true, and therefore the second. 

The seventh place is taken from Acts xvii 2, 3, where Luke 


646 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


writes that Paul reasoned for three sabbath-days out of the scrip- 
tures, avo Tàv *ypadQov, that Christ had suffered; so that this was 
the Christ whom he preached unto them. Paul then discoursed 
from the scriptures, and confirmed his whole doctrine by the scrip- 
tures. Hence we gather the following argument: If Paul used no 
other evidence than that of scripture in teaching and delivering the 
gospel, and refuting the Jews; then all testimonies which are re- 
quisite either to confirm the true doctrine of the gospel or to refute 
heresies may be taken out of scripture. The former is true, and 
therefore the latter. The consequence is manifest. For if any 
other testimony had been necessary, the apostle would have used it. 
But he confirmed his doctrine only by the scriptures; and therefore, 
in verse 11, the Bereans are praised for having searched the scrip- 
tures, and examined Paul's teaching by them. Therefore we ought 
to do likewise. Now no heretics are more keen disputers, or more 
difficult to be refuted, than the Jews. 

The eighth place is taken from Acts xviii. 24 and 28. Apollos 
was mighty in the scriptures, and refuted the Jews forcibly, evro- 
ves, out of the scriptures. We may argue here as in the former 
case: If Apollos made use only of the scriptures in refuting the 
Jews and confirming the doctrine of the gospel, then the gospel 
may be confirmed and heresies refuted by the scriptures alone. 
The former is true, and consequently the latter also. 

The ninth place is taken from Acts xxiv. 14, where Paul 
testifies before the governor, that he believed all things which are 
written in the law and the prophets: in which words Paul designed 
to give evidence of his faith, religion and piety. For the reason 
why he said this was to persuade the Jews that he was a believer 
and a Christian. It follows from this, that all articles of faith are 
contained in the books of Moses and the prophets. Thus, then, we 
argue: If all things that should be believed by a faithful and godly 
man are delivered in the books of Moses and the prophets, then all 
necessary things are found in the scriptures. Now the former is 
true, and therefore also the latter. The consequence holds; be- 
cause the whole worship of God consists in believing those things 
which are delivered by Moses and the prophets, and faith embraces 
these alone. So Paul says: “So worship I the God of my fathers, 
believing all things which are written in the law and in the 
prophets.” He indicates that the true worship of God consists in 
believing what Moses and the prophets taught. If any other 
things were necessary, then he would not have used a pertinent 


xv.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 647 


argument to prove his piety. But hence it is plain that God willed 
nothing but the faithful reception of whatever is delivered in the 
scriptures, and that he is truly and perfectly a believer, who 
believes all things contained in the scriptures. 

The tenth place is taken from Acts xxvi. 22, where Paul says, 
that through the divine assistance he continued up to that very 
day, witnessing both to small and great, saying nothing beside, 
ovoev ékros, “those things which Moses and the prophets did say 
should come." Therefore Paul in preaching the gospel uttered not 
a word extraneous to the scriptures of the law and the prophets. 
From this passage we reason thus: If Paul, when he preached the 
gospel, uttered not a word beside the Mosaic and prophetical scrip- 
tures, then all things necessary to the preaching of the gospel are 
contained in the scriptures. Now the former is true, and therefore 
also the second. The consequence holds: for Paul preached the 
whole gospel, being designed for this special purpose by God, and 
in the whole explication of it spoke nothing beside the scriptures. 
In Acts xx. 27, he says that he declared to the Ephesians “the 
whole counsel of God." Therefore the whole counsel of God in 
announcing the gospel may be learned from the scriptures. Hence 
another syllogism follows: If Paul taught nothing beside the scrip- 
tures, then neither is it now lawful for any one to deliver anything 
beside the scripture. But the former is true, and therefore the 
second. For who will dare to assume to himself what Paul could 
not or ought not to do? 

The eleventh place is taken from Rom. i. 2, where Paul says 
that the gospel which he preached was before promised in the 
prophets. But perhaps it may be said that these prophets did not 
write; for the papists are continually falling into this delusion. 
Now, to prevent the suspicion that the prophets made this promise 
only orally, and did not commit it to writing, it follows, that the 
gospel was promised by the prophets év ypagats avyias, “in the 
holy scriptures.” Hence we argue thus: If that gospel which Paul 
preached was promised in the scriptures, and Paul preached the 
whole gospel; then the whole gospel was promised in the scriptures, 
and may be found in them. The former is true, and consequently 
the latter also. What will they deny here? Did he preach the 
whole gospel, or only a part of it? Did he not preach the whole ? 
Nay, he was specially appointed to the office of preaching, not a 
part of the gospel, but the whole. If they say that only part of 
the gospel was preached by Paul, let them specify how large a part 
that was. But they cannot. Chrysostom writes admirably upon 


648 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


this place: * The prophets did not merely speak, but committed 
what they spoke to writing; nor did they merely write, but pre- 
figured future events also in real types. Such was Abraham’s 
leading his son Isaac to sacrifice; Moses’ lifting up the brasen 
serpent, and stretching forth his hands over Amalek, and slaying 
the Paschal lamb.” So Chysostom, and so, chap. xvi. 26, we read 
that this gospel was declared dia ypapév mpodntixer. 

The twelfth place is taken from Rom. x. 17: “ Faith cometh by 
hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Whence it appears 
that faith is conceived by hearing. But many things are heard: 
which, then, are those the hearing whereof begets faith ? The word 
of God, pzua Tov Oeov, says Paul. From which words we argue 
thus: If faith is conceived by hearing the word of God, then all 
things which are necessary to faith are contained in the word of 
God. The former is true, and therefore the latter. But they 
will say that the whole word of God is not written. Now, I under- 
take to prove that the word of God in this place denotes the scrip- 
ture. Itis written in 1 Peter i. last verse, ** The word of the Lord 
abideth for ever; and this is the word which by the gospel is 
preached unto you." In Matth. v. 18, Christ says: “ Until heaven 
and earth shall pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means 
pass from the law till all things be fulfilled." This is the very same 
as Peter says: for the law in this place denotes the written teach- 
ing. So Matth. xxiv. 35, Christ says, * Heaven and earth shall 
pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Now we have be- 
fore shewn and proved that all Christ's words, or at least all that 
were necessary, are written. Peter himself makes this clear when 
he says, “ This is the word which by the gospel is preached unto 
you.” So Paul, Rom. x. 8, * That is, the word of faith which we 
preach." For the whole gospel is promised, as we learnt above, in 
the prophetic scriptures, and declared in the apostolic. Basil in his 
Ascetics excellently well confirms our interpretation; for he says, 
* Whatsoever is beside the divinely inspired scriptures is sin, because 
it is not of faith; and faith is by hearing, and hearing by the word 
of God.” Where he determines that that word whereby faith is 
begotten is by no means to be sought without the divinely inspired 
scriptures. 

The thirteenth place is taken from Rom. xv. 4: ** Whatsoever 
things were written of old time were written for our learning, that 
we through patience and comfort of the scripture might have 
hope. In which words the apostle shews, by using the term 
apoerypady, that he is explaining the utility of the old Testament. 


xv.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 649 


Now, what was this utility? Our instruction; for he says, eis 
nuetépav CoackadXiav. Whence it appears that there is no part 
of the old Testament idle or unfruitful. From this place we argue 
thus: If the Lord willed that so many things should be written for 
our instruction, that we might so be the better advanced in learning, 
then he willed that all necessary things should be written. The 
first is true; therefore also the latter. The force of the inference 
is manifest: for if he willed that not merely one or two, but so 
many books should be written, it follows necessarily that all neces- 
sary things are written in them; for we cannot suppose him to have 
chosen to repeat the same things so often, and yet omit what was 
necessary. This is confirmed by the consideration that God hath 
added the new to the books of the old Testament, so as to put us in 
possession of a most lucid body of teaching. This is afterwards 
made still clearer; for Paul subjoins, “that we through patience 
and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." If hope springs 
from the scriptures, then faith; for hope is supported by faith. 
Therefore all things necessary may be derived from the scriptures. 

The fourteenth place is taken from Eph. ii. 19, 20: ** Ye are no 
longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens of the saints, 
and of the household of God; and are built, ézouocoux0évres, upon ' 
the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself 
being the chief corner-stone.” By the foundation of the apostles 
and prophets he means the prophetic and apostolic doctrine; as not 
only our divines, but Aquinas also, and Cajetan, and all the papists, 
confess. It will not be necessary, therefore, to stand upon the proof 
of this. Cajetan says that we are built upon Christ by means of 
the doctrine of the prophets and apostles. But why hath Paul 
coupled the prophets with the apostles? The reason of this may be 
learned from Thomas, who says that Paul names both, because 
the doctrine of both is necessary to salvation, and to shew the har- 
mony between them. ‘ For,” says he, “the apostles preached that 
those things had been done which the prophets predicted should 
occur!" Hence then I draw the following inference: The prophets 
foretold all things necessary to salvation; therefore the apostles 
preached all things necessary. But the papists confess this of the 
apostles’ preaching, and so I seem to prove nothing against them. 
Well, upon this I frame another argument, to this effect: Whatever 
the prophets preached they also wrote. So says Chrysostom, aep 


[1 Nam que prophet futura preedixerunt, ea apostoli facta preedica- 
runt.—In Ephes. ii. 20. Comm. Lect. vi. Expos. in Pauli Epp. Basil. 1475.] 


€Xeyor Kai €ypaQor. They wrote therefore all necessary things. 
Now whaiever the prophets foretold and wrote, the apostles preached 
and wrote to have been fulfilled. Therefore all necessary things 
are contained im the prophetic and apostolic scriptures; in the 
former as future, in the latter as done; in the former predicted, 
fulfilled in the latter. And it is sufficient for our purpose, if it be 
allowed that the prophets wrote all; since it is most certain that 
nothing is predicted in the prophetic books, the fulfilment of which 
may not be read im the apostolic. Hence, therefore, I gather a 
fresh argument: If the church rest only upon the written teaching 
of the prophets, then it rests also wholly upon the written teaching 
of the apostles. Now the former is true; for they can produce no 
unwritten teaching of the prophets: therefore also the latter. 

The fifteenth place is taken from 2 Pet 1. 19: “ We have also 
a more sure word, Ao-yo», of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that 
ye take heed, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day 
dawn, and the day-spring arise in your hearts." In which words 
the state of this life is compared to a dark place, which needs the 
light of a candle; but the state of the life to come, to the clear 
day, when Christ our day-spring shall arise and shed his divine 
hght upon our minds. Peter then exhorts us, whilst we sojourn in 
this life, to turn our eyes continually towards this lamp of the 
prophete word. Hence I argue thus: If in this dark life no 
other light is proposed or shewn to us but that of the scriptures, 
then we should be engaged with the scriptures alone, acquiesce in 
them, and betake ourselves wholly to them alone. Now the ante- 
cedent is írue; therefore also the consequent. The minor is 
proved by observing that the apostle assigns as our lamp the 
prophetie word, Acyor zpoQmr:ixor, or the holy scripture, as 
Cajetan interprets it, and all concede. For that Aoyos is fre- 
quently used for scripture, is evident from many passages. Acts 
i. 1, Tro» per = pwroy Ao-yor €xomcauny: where Aoyos; means 
the book. Lake ii. 4, ex -yeypaz-a: ev BiSBre Aoyer ' Hcatov. 
And Acts xii 27, Q@evai tev zpodrev, the voices of the 
prophets are said to be read. 

The sixteenth place is taken from 1 John i 4, “ And these 
things we write unto you, that your joy may be full” In the 
first verse he mentions the word of life, and says, “ That which 
we have seen and heard declare we unto you.” But do we only 
declare it? Yea also, -ypadouer, we write it; for he speaks not 
merely of himself, but of the other writers too. Whaisoever things, 


xv. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 651 


then, the apostles heard and saw, they announced; and whatever 
they announced, they wrote. Now, as the papists confess, they 
announced all necessary things; therefore they wrote all neces- 
sary things. This is still more clearly shewn by the end proposed, 
“that your joy may be full” Thus then I reason: Full joy is 
procured by the scriptures: therefore scripture is perfect. 

The last testimony is taken from the title of the scriptures, 
which are called the old and new Testaments. The prophetic 
books form the old Testament, the evangelical books thenew. This 
is plain from 2 Cor. ii. 14: “In the reading of the old Testa- 
ment, even unto this day remaineth that same veil untaken away ; 
which veil is done away in Christ.” Paul speaks of the prophetic 
books. Therefore the prophetic books bear the title of the old 
Testament. Hence I draw the following conclusion: If the books 
of holy scripture are rightly called the old and new Testaments, 
then they contain the full and perfect will of God and Christ. For 
it is the very notion of a testament to declare the perfect will of 
the testator, that is, of the Maker of the Testament. For even in 
the case of man’s testament, no man disannulleth or addeth thereto, 
as Paul observes, Gal ni 15. If then this be really God's 
Testament, then it contains the full will of God; and consequently 
none should add to or diminish from it, or seek the will of God 
elsewhere. Now it is the Testament of God; for no one hath 
hitherto blamed that title: therefore it contains the entire will of 
God. And, indeed, the covenant unfolded in these books Christ 
hath confirmed and established in his own blood. 





CHAPTER XVI. 


UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS ARE OPPOSED BY REASONS. 


HiTHERTO we have defended our opinion of the perfection of 
scripture by many testimonies from scripture. It follows now 
that we allege some REAsoNs suited to our purpose. We might 
produce many such, but will content ourselves with a few, namely, 
those which Bellarmine endeavours to answer, Lib. tv. c. 12. 
They are four in number. 

The First is this. Unwritten traditions cannot belong pre- 
served: for such is the perversity, negligence, and ignorance of 


652 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


men, as readily to subvert the best established things. Matters 
entrusted to men's memories are easily consigned to oblivion. 
These are notorious truths. Let us see how our opponent meets 
this argument. He answers very confidently, that it is impossible 
that these traditions should not be preserved, because the care 
of them rests not on men, but on God. Here he notices God's 
care in preserving his church ; how God preserved traditions in- 
violate from Adam to the time of Moses, and the scriptures from 
Moses down to our times. Therefore, says he, God can now also 
preserve unwritten traditions. I answer: In the first place, I 
confess that the divine Providence can preserve from destruction 
whatever it chooses; for God can do whatever he wills. But 
if we choose thus to abuse the divine Providence, we may, in 
the same manner, infer that there is no need of the scriptures, 
that every thing should be trusted to the Divine Providence, and 
nothing committed to writing, because God can preserve reli- 
gion safe without the scriptures. As to what he says about the 
church, I confess indeed that it can never perish; because God 
hath promised that he will always preserve and defend his church 
against all the attempts of those who seek to crush and destroy 
it. But God hath nowhere promised that he will save and protect 
unwritten traditions from being lost: consequently, the church 
and tradition are not parallel cases. I can produce innumerable 
testimonies and promises wherewith God hath bound himself to the 
church to preserve it: let them produce any such promises of God 
respecting the preservation of traditions. Now this they cannot 
do. Secondly, I confess that God preserved his doctrine from 
Adam to Moses orally transmitted, that is, in the form of unwritten 
tradition. It cannot be denied. But then it was amongst exceed- 
ing few persons: for the great majority had corrupted this doctrine. 
Besides, God frequently and familiarly shewed himself to the holy 
fathers who then lived; conversed with them, and often renewed 
and restored the doctrine orally delivered, and brought it back to 
its integrity and purity, when not preserved from all corruption 
even by those godly men themselves. Thus God conversed fami- 
liarly with those ancient patriarchs: and if the reasoning of our 
opponent were of any weight now, God would still treat us in the 
same manner. But there is the greatest difference between those 
things and ours; and consequently his reasoning hath no weight. 
Thirdly, the fact of Moses having written his heavenly doctrine is 
a point of great importance against tradition, and strongly confirm- 


xvi.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 653 


atory of our opinion. For if God had seen that religion could 
have been preserved entire and uncorrupted without the scriptures, 
he would not have enjoined Moses to consign it in the lasting 
monuments of written records: but perceiving that religion was 
more and more corrupted every day, and that he was obliged to 
repeat the same revelations very often, he devised a remedy in the 
shape of writing. Although, therefore, formerly, when the body 
of the church was scattered, and the worshippers of God but few, 
there was no scripture; yet afterwards, when the body of the 
church was collected, God willed that his doctrine should be written. 
Fourthly, when he says that God preserved the scriptures from 
Moses to our time, and therefore can now preserve unwritten tra- 
ditions, his argument will be allowed to be of force when he can 
shew that God feels the same solicitude for unwritten as for written 
doctrine, and embraces both with the same care. But God hath no 
such design. God protects the scriptures against Satan, as being 
their constant enemy. Satan hath frequently endeavoured to de- 
stroy the scriptures, knowing that they stand in his way: but he 
hath never spent any trouble or thought upon these unwritten 
traditions ; for he supposed that his whole object would be gained 
if he could destroy the scriptures. In pursuance of this plan he 
hath raised up such impious tyrants as Antiochus, Maximin, Diocle- 
tian, and others, who have endeavoured utterly to quench the light 
of scripture. Now, if religion could remain entire even when these 
books were lost, it would be in vain for Satan to labour with such 
furious efforts to remove these books. 

As to his assertion that it is impossible that traditions should 
perish, I press him in turn with the inquiry, who was the guardian 
of these traditions? If they are preserved, they must be pre- 
served by somebody. Had they then but one guardian, or several ? 
If many, who were they ? Perhaps he will say, the fathers. But 
the fathers are at variance amongst themselves, and do not deter- 
mine unanimously upon tradition. One affirms this to be an apos- 
tolical tradition; another denies it: now, if they were the guar- 
dians, they would agree. There must then be but one guardian ; 
who is he? The pope forsooth. But how hath he kept them,— 
in a book, or in his mind? Not in a book; for no pope ever had 
such a book, and no one pretends such a thing : nor yet in his 
mind; for then, when the pope died, traditions would perish with 
him, and the church lose a great part of necessary doctrine. Be- 
sides, when a person is chosen pope, he brings no other mind with 


654 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


him to the papacy than he had formerly when he was a cardinal 
or à monk; whereas this hypothesis would require that his mind 
should be immediately illuminated with the ideas of these tradi- 
tions. Since, then, we can find no competent guardians of these 
traditions, it is plain that they must have long since perished, or 
been very negligently kept. Our reasoning, therefore, is certain 
and perfectly clear. Whatever is not committed to writing easily 
perishes. Where now are the laws of Lycurgus? They have 
perished. Where the unwritten dogmas and secret institutions of 
Pythagoras? They are nowhere to be found. Where the discipline 
of the Druids? It lies utterly extinguished; nor does a single ves- 
tige of it remain, save, perchance, some slight traces which we owe 
to writing and to books. Yea, where are those traditions of the 
Jews which Bellarmine tells us they received from Moses and the 
prophets? Assuredly they are either kept in writing in the books 
of the old and new Testaments, or else they have perished utterly 
because not committed to books: for Bellarmine, I suppose, will 
not venture to say that the church is the guardian of these tradi- 
tions. If the trite proverb, 
Vox audita perit, litera scripta manet, 

be true in any case, its truth is most strikingly illustrated in the 
present; and that the more, in proportion as our minds are usually 
most prone to forget those things which are most excellent and 
relate to God. All things which are not written are on the brink 
of death and oblivion. In Isaiah xxx. 8, God says: “Go write 
it in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to 
come, for ever and ever." Thus he intimates that things which 
are to last for a constancy must be committed to writing. And it 
is plain that the Lord is speaking of his word; for he says in the 
next verse, that “ this is a rebellious people, lying children, children 
that will not hear the law of the Lord." Job, that pious and holy 
man, says in his book, xix. 28, 24: ** Oh that my words were now 
written! Oh that they were printed in a book! that they were 
graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever!” Where 
is shewn the great efficacy of scripture, and how those things re- 
quire to be written, which we wish to be kept safe throughout all 
ages. In Psalm cii. 19, the prophet says: “Let this be written 
for a memorial to those that come after." If we wish, then, that 
anything should go down to posterity, it must be committed to 
writing. We may adduce with the same view the passage, Luke i. 
1, 2, where Luke says that it behoved him to write these things, in 


XVI. ] : QUESTION THE SIXTH. 655 


order that Theophilus might be put in possession of the certainty 
of that doctrine which he had received. And the cause impelling 
Luke to this course confirms this: “ Forasmuch,” says he, “as 
many have taken in hand” to write, that is to corrupt the gospel, 
such as Ebion, Cerinthus, Apelles and the rest. It is on this 
account, Luke says, that it became needful for him to write. Con- 
sequently it is necessary that the gospel should be written; since 
otherwise it could not be preserved entire. Theophylact explains 
these words intelligently and perspicuously in his commentary upon 
this place : * Now, in delivering to you the gospel in a written form, 
confirm and assure your reason, lest you should forget what was 
orally imparted to you!" Writing, then, is in the nature of a 
muniment to keep safe the memory of things. So the apostle, 
Philipp. iii. 1: * To write the same things unto you, to me is not 
grievous, and for you it is safe." Therefore it is safe for us that 
teaching should be written, and that often. The old interpreter 
hath translated it, mhé necessarium est: where Thomas Aquinas 
remarks, ** Words pass easily away, but those things which are 
written remain?" In Exod. xvii. 14, the Lord says, ** Write this 
for a memorial in a book." Upon which place Cajetan observes 
thus: * He orders the achievement to be written for a continual 
record of it?." Thus it plainly appears that our reasoning is 
founded upon the clearest lessons of common experience. For 
when memory fails, then those things which are committed to 
memory fail also. Hence conditions of peace, treaties, covenants, 
and whatever we wish to be safe and lasting, we commit to writing 
lest they should be lost, distrusting our memories. Now if our 
memory is so frail in outward things, then much more have we 
need of all helps and remedies for the support of our memories 
in the case of heavenly things. Thomas, in the proem to his 
Catena Aurea upon the gospel of Matthew, relates, out of Jerome, 
two reasons why Matthew wrote his gospel: the first was, that 
he might leave his gospel in men’s memories; the second, that he 
might guard against the heretics. On both accounts it is plain 
that the scriptures are necessary for us in every part of religion. 
But in addition to the reason drawn from a consideration of 
the divine Providence (which he thinks the most important, and to 


[1 Nov éyypá$os cor mapadidovs TÓ evayyéduoy, dodaA((opat tov adv do- 
yeopor, iva pt emiddOntra Tdv dypades mapa8eOopévov.] 

[2 Verba de facili transeunt: ea vero que scripta sunt permanent. | 

[3 Rem gestam scribi jubet, ad perpetuam rei memoriam. | 


656 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


which he trusts principally), Bellarmine adduces four others, to 
prove that traditions cannot perish. These we will briefly review. 

The first is scripture itself. But hereby he does not mean the 
holy scriptures: for although, says he, traditions are not found in 
the sacred books, yet they may be found in the monuments of 
the ancients and the ecclesiastical writings. I answer: In the 
first place, if God willed traditions to be written by any men, he 
doubtless willed that it should be by the apostles and evangelists, 
who were the fittest of all men to execute that work. Let them 
specify some cause, or allege some reason, why he should not 
rather have chosen that they should be written by Matthew, Mark, 
Luke, and the other apostles, than by Dionysius the Areopagite, 
Clemens Romanus, Irenzeus, Augustine, and the like. Secondly, 
this answer puts those ecclesiastical writers whom they style 
classics, upon a par with the divine writers, the prophets, evan- 
gelists and apostles. For when they wish to prove any tradition, 
what reason, what authority, what demonstration do they allege ? 
They bring forward Dionysius, Irenzeus, Cyprian, Tertullian, Cle- 
mens, and other such fathers of the church; and by their authority 
they seek to persuade us, that these traditions are as certainly 
apostolic as if the apostles themselves had affirmed it. Consequently 
they give them no less credit, and demand for them no less than 
for Paul, Peter, and the other apostles. Thirdly, these monuments 
of the fathers differ about traditions, and make us still more un- 
certain. For when some affirm a thing to be an apostolical tradi- 
tion, while others deny it, who sees not that the whole subject may 
be reasonably called in question ? 

The second cause, whereby he proves the possibility of pre- 
serving traditions, is continual usage. In this way, says he, the 
vulgar languages are preserved, although there are no grammars of 
them. I answer: Nothing surely can be more futile than this 
reply. For, first, some traditions are secret, and in no way resting 
upon common usage, but far removed from daily practice, being 
used only at certain times, and not by many but a few.  Se- 
condly, these vulgar languages are changed almost every age, even 
those which are in daily and most frequent use. So the English 
and the Italians and other people have several times changed their 
languages. Consequently, if those things which are in the greatest 
use of a whole people, undergo such manifold changes and varia- 
tions, how much more is it credible that those which are remote 
from popular use, and belong to the abstruser parts of scientific 


XVI. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 657 


theology, are liable to be easily altered, unless defined by the cer- 
tain rules and laws of scripture! If languages, which all men use, 
cannot be protected from alteration, how much less traditions which 
but few understand! | 

The third cause why traditions may be preserved is founded 
in certain ancient monuments. Here he relates a story about an 
altar in Flanders, which the hereties (he tells us) ordered to be 
overturned, saying, that altars were a modern invention: but 
whilst they were at work, they found some ancient characters 
graven upon the altars, from which they perceived that it was an 
ancient monument. I answer: This is a very foolish reason. For, 
firstly, this cannot be affirmed of all traditions, since it is not 
possible that there should be external monuments of them all; 
secondly, if traditions are preserved in dumb monuments, why are 
they not rather inscribed in the scriptures ? 

The fourth cause which enables traditions to be preserved is 
heresy. Heretics, says he, have aroused the church to seek into 
and preserve all traditions. For, he adds, those who live in peace 
are apt to neglect the instruments which confirm the possession of 
their goods; but they who are engaged in perpetual contention and 
strife keep them diligently. I answer: Firstly, if this be a true 
reply, then nothing needed to have been written, because heretics 
are always in the church, and always engaged in strife. Secondly, 
if the fathers said truly, that the gospel was on that very account 
committed to writing because the heretics would constantly oppose 
it, then those traditions also should have been written, because (as 
he tells us) the heretics endeavour likewise to corrupt traditions. 
Luke speaks in a very different tone at the beginning of his first 
chapter. ‘Forasmuch,” says he, “as heretics have attempted to 
corrupt the sacred history, I have therefore determined to put it 
in writing.” So Jerome and others! interpret this passage in Luke. 
These reasons of Bellarmine’s therefore are obviously weak. 

Our sECOND REASON is this: The scriptures were delivered to 
us that we might possess a rule of faith. Consequently, the 
scripture is sufficient, and therefore there is no need of unwritten 
traditions. See Augustine, contra Faust. Manich. Lib. xr. c. 5, 
and de Civit. Dei, Lib. xix. e. 18. Now, a rule of faith must be 
adequate, for otherwise it will be no rule at all. Bellarmine makes 
two replies, and assuredly with equal impudence and hardihood. 
First he says, that the proper end of scripture is not to be a rule 


1 [Hieron. Preef. in Matth. Origen. Hom. in Luc. i. 1. Theoph. in Luc. i. 1.] 


2 
[ WHITAKER. | : 


658 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


of faith, but a kind of commonitory to help us to retain and cherish 
the doctrine orally delivered. I answer: In the first place, this 
reply is confuted by the very common title of scripture: it is 
called canonical, because it contains the canon, that is, the rule of 
faith and life. No one ever found fault with that inscription. The 
fathers always call it the canonical scripture. If it be a rule, then 
it is either no rule of our faith, or a perfect and adequate one. 
Thus Bellarmine removes that common title, confirmed by universal 
approbation; since according to him we should call the scripture 
commonitory, and not canonical. Secondly, if the scripture were 
published not to serve as a rule of faith, but as a sort of commoni- 
tory, then there would have been no necessity for writing so many 
books; for a few books would have sufficed for such a purpose. 
‘Thirdly, we have already proved by many arguments and testi- 
monies that the scriptures are perfect, as from Deut. iv. and Psalm 
xix. and other passages: therefore they do not merely remind, 
but perfectly instruct and teach us. In Psalm cxix. 132, the pro- 
phet says: * Direct my feet in thy word:” therefore the scripture 
is a rule by which we may direct the whole course of our faith 
and life. In Matth. xxii. 29, Christ says to the Sadducees, * Ye 
do err, not knowing the scriptures;" and in Luke xvi. 29, Abra- 
ham says to the glutton, * They have Moses and the prophets :” 
therefore the canonical books of scripture are not only our moni- 
tors, but our masters also. Besides, they are * written for our 
learning ;" and therefore not only for our admonition, as appears 
from Rom. xv. 4. And in 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17, the apostle says that 
the scripture is useful not for commonition only, but “ for doctrine, 
for reproof, for correction, and for instruction," that is, for all the 
functions of the ministry: for he subjoins, “that the man of God 
may be perfect, throughly furnished unto every good work." Is 
this nothing more than a commonitory ? The scripture is also 
called the Testament. Therefore this assertion of our adversary's, 
that the scripture is not a rule, but only a sort of commonitory, is 
absurd in the highest degree, and not far removed from blasphemy. 

Fourthly, the fathers themselves also teach most plainly, why the 
scripture is called canonical. Cyprian, in his discourse on the baptism 
of Christ, says that “all the rules of doctrine have emanated from 
scripture!" Basil, contra Eunom. Lib. r, calls scripture “ the 


[! Inveniet ex hac scriptura omnium doctrinarum regulas emanasse; et 
hine nasci, et huc reverti, quidquid ecclesiastica continet disciplina.—In Fell’s 
Cyprian, App. p. 33. inter Opp. Arnoldi Abb. Bonz-Vallis. V. sup. p. 28.] 


evt] | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 659 


canon of right and the standard of truth?" Chrysostom, Hom. 
13, in Genes. says: “The scripture, when it would teach us any 
thing of this kind, explains itself, and suffers not the hearer to fall 
into error. I pray, therefore, and beseech you that, closmg your 
ears to all these, you would follow exactly the rule of holy scrip- 
ture?" Augustine, De baptismo, e. Donat. Lib. rt. says that the 
scriptures are “the balance of God. Let us not," he proceeds, 
* bring deceitful balances, where we may weigh what we choose 
and as we choose, saying at our own pleasure, this is heavy, and 
this is light: but let us bring the divine balance from the holy 
scriptures, as from the treasury of the Lord, and therein weigh 
which is weightiest ;——or rather, not weigh it ourselves, but mark 
how it is weighed by the Lord*" As, therefore, when we would 
diseover the weight of any thing, we apply a balance; so, if we 
know not whether this or that doctrine be true, we should try it 
by the balance of the scripture. Augustine elsewhere (De perfect. 
Viduit. cap. 1.) writes thus upon this subject : ** The holy scripture 
hath fixed the rule of our doctrine, that we may not seem to be 
wiser than we ought, but be wise, as the apostle says, soberly, 
according as God hath given to every man the measure of faith. 
Let me not then think, that in teaching you I am doing any 
thing more than expounding to you the words of the great 
Teacher, and discoursing of that which the Lord hath given5." 
The same author, contra Crescon. Grammat. Lib. 1. c. 31, writes 
thus concerning the same subject: ‘It was not without cause that 
the ecclesiastical canon was with such wholesome vigilance esta- 
blished, to which certain books of the prophets and apostles apper- 
tain; which books we must by no means dare to judge of, and 


[3 The reference is, I suppose, to T. ir. p. 8. c. But Basil is there 
speaking of the Creed, not of the scripture.] 

[3 rhs dylas ypadijs, émeióàv BovAnral te rovodrov pas diddoxew, éavriv 
Epanvevovons, kai ovk adueions mhavac Oar tov dxpoarnv.—T. 1v. p. 103.] | 

[4 Non afferamus stateras dolosas, ubi appendamus quod volumus, et 
quomodo volumus, pro arbitrio nostro dicentes, hoc grave, hoc leve est: sed 
afferamus divinam stateram de scripturis sanctis tanquam de thesauris Do- 
minicis, et in illa quid sit gravius appendamus ; imo non appendamus, sed a 
Domino appensa recognoscamus.—-T. vir. p. 43. Paris. 1635. ] 

[5 Sancta scriptura doctrinz nostre regulam figit, ne audeamus sapere 
plus quam oportet sapere, sed sapiamus, ut ipse ait, ad temperantiam, sieut 
unicuique Deus partitus est mensuram fidei. Non sit ergo mihi aliud te 
docere, nisi verba tibi Doctoris exponere, et de iis quod Dominus dederit 
disputare.—De Bono Viduit. c. 1.] 


42—2 


660 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


according to whieh we may freely judge of all other writings of 
believers or unbelievers!” Therefore scripture is the rule by 
which we must try all things. Thus, whatever disagrees with 
scripture should be rejected ; whatever agrees with it, received. 
Nay, Thomas himself, in his Comment. on 1 Tim. c. vi., Lect. 1, 
says that “scripture is as it were the rule of our faith?" He 
does not say “as it were," to diminish the dignity of scripture, 
but to shew that he is drawing a comparison. Quasi is here a 
mark not of diminution, but of comparison. And that he means 
that scripture is a perfect rule, is evident from his subjoining that 
nothing should be added to or diminished from it: to which 
purpose he alleges Deut. iv. 2, and Rev. xxii. 18, 19. 

Let us now look at the causes and reasons which induce Bel- 
larmine to style scripture a commonitory, rather than a rule. The 
first reason is, because in the latter case only necessary things 
should have been written: but now, says he, many things not 
necessary have been written; as allthe histories of the old Testa- 
ment, many of the new, some of the Acts of the Apostles, and all 
the salutations in the apostolic epistles. But every rule comprises 
only things necessary. I answer: In the first place, no one can 
fail to observe how impious and profane is his assertion, that none 
of the histories of the old Testament are necessary. Is it not 
necessary for us to know the commencement of the church, its 
propagation, and continual conservation and government, and 
the promises made to the patriarchs concerning the Messiah ? 
Surely he blasphemes who denies this. Secondly, although it may 
be conceded that all the histories are not equally useful and neces- 
sary, because many may be saved without the knowledge of many 
histories; yet in reality they are all not only useful, but necessary 
also. For although they are not all requisite to the being of faith, 
yet they contribute greatly to its better being. Thirdly, although 
perhaps more things than can be styled simply necessary are deli- 
vered in scripture, yet it does not therefore follow that the scrip- 
ture is not a rule. For although the scripture contains some 
things which are not simply and absolutely necessary ; nevertheless, 
it is a rule to which all doctrine ought to be conformed. We say 


[1 Neque enim sine causa tam salubri vigilantia Canon ecclesiasticus 
constitutus est, ad quem certi prophetarum et apostolorum libri pertineant ; 
quos omnes judicare non audeamus, et secundum quos de ceteris literis vel 
fidelium vel infidelium libere judicemus. —T. vu. p. 177.] 

[? Scriptura est quasi regula fidei nostre. Vide supra, p. 28.] 


XVI. ] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 661 


that the scriptures are a rule, because they contain all things 
necessary to faith and salvation, and more things may be found in 
them than absolute necessity requires. We do not attach so strict 
and precise a notion to the term ‘rule,’ as to make it contain nothing 
but what is necessary: and as to many things being frequently 
repeated, this makes it still more a rule; since that repetition is 
profitable to our better and surer understanding of what is said. 
Our adversary’s second reason is, because the scripture does 
not contain all necessary things, as, says he, we have already 
proved: for there are many necessary things which are not in 
scripture. I answer: And we have already sufficiently replied, 
that the things which he deems necessary are useless and ridi- 
culous: such are the remedy whereby women were cleansed from 
original sin under the old Testament, and others of the like sort, 
upon which we have spoken before.  Bellarmine's third reason 
is, because scripture is not one continuous body, as it ought to 
be, if it were the rule of faith, but several. I answer: Although 
scripture contains many bodies, yet all these make up one conti- 
nuous and entire body. The men indeed were various, whose 
service the Holy Spirit used in writing these pieces, and the hands 
which wrote them were many: but it was one Spirit which 
governed their hands and tongues. We should not regard the 
various men who wrote, but the one Spirit under whose direction 
and dietation they wrote. Thus there is one continuous body of 
doctrine in these books, various as they are. nally, Bellarmine 
produces certain passages from scripture to prove that scripture is 
a commonitory, and not à rule; as Rom. xv. 4, where the apostle 
says that all things which were written were written for our 
learning; and 2 Pet. i. 12, and ii. l, where Peter says that it 
was needful for him to remind and stir up those to whom he 
wrote. Therefore, (says he) it is commonitory, and not a rule. I 
answer to the first place, that the apostle says that all things 
which were written of old time were written for our learning. 
Now to be written for our learning is something more than com- 
monition. We are commonished or reminded of things which we 
knew before; but we learn things of which we were previously 
ignorant. As to the place of Peter, I allow that the scripture is 
profitable for monition; but I say that this is not the only use it 
serves. For although Peter says that it was needful for him to 
remind those to whom he wrote, yet he does not merely do this, 
but teaches them also what it behoves them to know : and thus the 


662 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ou. 


scripture, when teaching us what we ought to know, exhorts us 
also to stand fast in this doctrine. 

Secondly, Bellarmine replies that scripture is a rule indeed, 
but partial, not complete ; and that the whole and entire rule 
is the word of God, which is divided into the written and the 
unwritten word; and that Augustine must be understood in this 
sense. I answer: It is unwillingly that he concedes to us that 
scripture is a rule; and therefore he afterwards denies it again, 
by saying that it is only a partial one, thus taking away what 
he had previously given. For unless scripture be a whole and 
perfect rule, it cannot be a rule at all; because there ought to 
be the exactest agreement between the rule and the thing to 
which it is applied. — If, therefore, our faith be longer or broader 
than the scripture, then the scripture is not its rule; because 
a rule should be adequate to the thing measured by it. A rule 
is thus defined by Varinus: “A rule is an infallible measure, 
admitting no addition or diminution!" | So Theophylact, upon 
Phil. ui: * A rule or standard admits neither addition nor ab- 
straction?" And Basil, Adv. Eunom. Lib. 1. blames Eunomius 
severely and justly for saying that the faith of the fathers is a 
rule or standard, and yet maintaining that something should be 
added to it: cv avrrv kai kavóva Xérye,, Kal mpocOykns Quoiv 
axpiecrépas detcAa*. In the same way Bellarmine says that 
scripture is a rule, and yet needs some addition and emendation. 
Consequently, he denies it to be a rule at all. Chrysostom, 
Hom. 13 in 2 Cor. says that “the sentence of the divine words” is 
* the exact balance and standard, and rule of all things." And, 
to let us know that he is speaking of the scriptures, he subjoins: 
* [nquire concerning all these things of the holy scriptures." 
So Photius, cited by CEcumenius upon Phil. iu.: * Faith is like a 
rule: for, like as if you take any thing from a rule, or add any 
thing to it, you entirely spoil the rule; so it is with faith*." Thus 
it is manifest that the scriptures are either a perfect rule, or no 
rule at all See also upon this subject Vincentius Lirinensis, 
c. 41. Why need I add, that Andradius himself testifies that 

[! Kavóv gore uérpov dOidvrevo rov, macav mpdcbeow kai adaipeow pndapas 
émiexópevov. | 

[2 6 kavàv yàp ovre mpdabcow exer ovre apaipeotv.—Theophyl. In Philipp. 
iii. 16, p. 611. Lond. 1636. ] 

[3 Basil. Opp. T. rr. p. 9. 4.] 

[4 @omep yap emi rod kavóvos Kav ádéAgs, Kav mpooÓjs, éAvugve TO Tay, OUT 
Kal emi Ths mia reos.] 


XVI. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 663 


scripture is a rule sufficiently perfect? For thus he writes, in the 
beginning of the third book of his Defensio Tridentina: “I am 
far from disliking the opinion of those who say that the scriptures 
are called canonical, because they contain the canon, that is, the 
amplest rule and standard of faith, piety, and religion, brought 
down to us from heaven by the exceeding goodness of God .” 
Thus he confesses that the scriptures are not only a rule, but a 
very ample rule of faith, piety, and religion. 

Secondly, I demand why he affirms the scriptures to be a 
partial rule, or a rule only in part, and not throughout and 
altogether? If, because they contain only some necessary things, 
he is utterly mistaken in the matter of fact. For if God willed 
to give us a rule in the scriptures, he certainly willed to give 
us a perfect one. This may be gathered from the ends to serve 
which, and the causes on account of which, the scriptures were 
published. For why was this teaching committed to writing ? 
First, that it might remain more fixedly in our memories. Now 
this reason teaches us that all necessary things ought to have 
been written; because all necessary things should be retained as 
firmly as may be in memory. Secondly, lest the doctrine should be 
corrupted. But nothing necessary ought to be corrupted. Thirdly, 
that we might the better and more surely know the sacred and hea- 
venly doctrine. But all necessary things we ought to know rightly 
and surely. Wherefore all the reasons for publishing the scriptures 
will establish, that all necessary things are delivered in them, and 
that scripture is a perfect rule: for whatever reason there was for 
delivering a rule, held also for making that rule complete. 

Thirdly, I answer, with respect to Augustine. Our adver- 
sary pretends that, though Augustine calls scripture a rule, he 
does not mean that it is the sole or perfect rule. Thus then 
speaks Augustine, Contra Faust. Manich. Lib. u. e. 5: * The 
canonical scripture is placed upon an elevated throne, demanding 
the obedience of every faithful and pious understanding®.” If 
this be true, then is it certain that scripture is as it were the 
queen and mistress which ought to rule and govern human in- 


[5 Minime illorum mihi displicet sententia, qui canonicas ideo appellari 
dicunt, quia pietatis, fidei et religionis canonem, hoc est, regulam atque 
normam, e colis summo Dei beneficio ad nos delatam, continent amplissi- 
mam.—-Andradii, Defens. Trid. Lib. 11. prope init. ] 

[$ ...in sede quadam sublimiter constituta est, cui serviat omnis fidelis 
et pius intellectus. —V ide supra, p. 353.] 


664 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


firmity, and to which our whole intellect, all teaching, every 
thought and opinion, should be conformed in dutiful submission. 
In the other place, which is taken from his City of God, Lib. xix. 
c, 18, he says that that faith “by which the just lives, and by 
whieh we walk without doubting so long as we sojourn absent 
from the Lord!," is engendered by the holy scriptures. Whence 
it follows, that scripture is a perfect rule both of faith and life. 

Fourthly, it may be answered, that Bellarmine contradicts 
himself. He said before that scripture could not be a rule, be- 
cause it is not one continuous body. But the written and un- 
written word are still less a continuous body; and yet he makes 
them both together form a rule. 

Our THIRD REASON is drawn from the inconveniences which 
traditions bring with them. — For if we allow so much to unwritten 
traditions, we shall often err, and be always in uncertainty; because 
traditions are various and uncertain. This is manifest from the 
books of the fathers, as we have before shewn. The fathers are 
witnesses of the variety and uncertainty of traditions. Now in the 
doctrine of faith we ought to be certain and constant: therefore 
we ought not to depend upon unwritten traditions. The extreme 
variety of traditions might be illustrated by many testimonies, and 
in many words; but I will touch it only briefly. Papias was the 
father and master of tradition. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. Lib. mt. e. 39,? 
writes copiously concerning him. He says that he wrote many 
things derived from unwritten tradition, €x qapaddcews arypádov, 
but that they were full of commentitious fables. He wrote, as 
Eusebius tells us, five books concerning the Lord's discourses : 
but these, through the goodness of God, are now lost. What 
sort of pieces they were, appears from Eusebius, who says that 
they were full of fables. He first invented the heresy of the 
Chiliasts, and that doubtless much more from unwritten tradition 
than scripture, although perhaps he seized upon some occasional 
support of that error from the scriptures.  CEcumenius? brings 
forward another tradition from this Papias concerning Judas,— 
namely, that he was not strangled, but, the rope breaking, lived in 
a most wretched condition for some time after, and at length 


[! Credit etiam scripturis sanctis, et veteribus et novis, quas canonicas 
appellamus; unde fides ipsa concepta est, ex qua justus vivit; per quam 
sine dubitatione ambulamus, quamdiu peregrinamur a Domino.] 

(2 T. r. p. 281, ed. Heinichen.] | 

[3 Apud Grabe, Spicil. rr. p. 34.] 


XVI. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 665 


expired upon the road, crushed to death by a chariot which hap- 
pened to pass by: which is also alluded to by Theophylact upon 
Matt. xxvii. But scripture opposes this, and the fathers form a 
different judgment. This Papias was the first who taught that 
Peter was at Rome, taught, lived, and died there*: for no author 
more ancient than he can be named for that tradition. To him 
the papists stand indebted for the primacy of their pontiff. Ter- 
tullian, c. Judseos, c. 5, says that Christ died in the thirtieth year 
of his age*; and Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. 1,9 says the same. 
But Irenzus, Lib. xr. c. 4, says that he lived to be fifty years 
old’. Both assertions are false; and ‘yet both are supported by 
tradition. 

There was formerly a great dispute about the time of cele- 
brating Easter. The Western churches said that they followed 
Paul and Peter, keeping Easter upon the Sunday after the four- 
teenth day of the third month, to avoid any conformity with the 
Jews. The Orientals and Asiaties, however, alleged John, as 
ample and sufficient authority as could be desired, and Philip, in 
defence of their practice of observing it after the Jewish manner, 
upon the actual fourteenth day of the third month. There were 
also, as will hereafter appear, many disputes and differences in 
former times concerning Lent. The papists, and even some of the 
fathers, say that stated fasts were instituted by the apostles. But 
Augustine, Ep. 68, ad Casulan. denies that the apostles deter- 
mined any thing about fasting. So Socrates, Lib. v. c. 22.8 
Indeed, it is certain that it was Montanus who instituted them, as 
we learn from the testimony of Apollonius, cited by Eusebius, Lib. 
v. c. 18. There, speaking of Montanus, he adds: ** This is he who 
introduced fasts?." This may be perceived also from Tertullian, 
who in his book de Jejunio, which he wrote when a Montanist 


{4 I can nowhere find that Papias said a word of Peter's having been at 
Rome, and cannot guess the grounds of this strong assertion. ] 

(5 Hujus [Tiberii] quinto decimo anno imperii passus est Christus, annos 
habens quasi xxx, cum pateretur.—c. 8, p. 234. ed. Seml. Lips. 1828.] 

[6 Page 340. a.] 

[/ The reference should be xr. 39. — Quia autem triginta annorum etas 
prime indolis est juvenis, et extenditur usque ad quadragesimum annum, 
omnis quilibet confitebitur a quadragesimo aut quinquagesimo anno declinat 
jam in etatem seniorem, quam habens Dominus noster docebat, &c.—p. 192. A. 
ed. Fevard.] 

[8 AgÀov ws TH ékdcTov yvdpy Kal mwpoawécet émérpeyyav oi ámóoroAot.—p. 
235. ed. Vales. Paris. 1686.] 


[9 obrós écTw ... 6 vgoreías vopobernoas.—T. II. p. 85.] 


666 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


against the catholics, blames the catholics for saying that men 
should **fast, each of his own free choice, as in a matter indif- 
ferent!," and that we should not be obliged to fast “at stated 
times according to the institution of the new discipline.” This 
Tertullian objected to the catholics; and this is the very thing 
which we affirm and maintain against the papists, that each man 
should fast as time and occasion shall require, not at fixed seasons. 
Thus it was that the catholics then fasted; but afterwards, when 
the heresy of Montanus had secretly diffused itself more extensively, 
fasts began to be observed according to the institution of the new 
discipline. In the same book, Tertullian? praises the practice of 
mortification by hard fare (Eypodaryiav), in conformity with which 
Epiphanius, in .Epilog.?, makes it an apostolical institution. 
Tertullian, in his book de Corona*, and Basil, in his 
treatise of the Holy Spirit, c. 27,5 enumerate various traditions, 
which they would have to be apostolical, but which are, never- 
theless, not at all observed by papists at the present day: for 
example, that we should stand at prayer on Sundays, and from 
Easter to Pentecost. Basil adduces some reasons in confirmation 
of this, upon which we have spoken above. Tertullian pronounces 
it a piece of impiety to do otherwise. So even the first council of 
Nice, Canon 20, says that we ought to pray standing at that 
season®, But the present practice is different, even amongst the 
papists; who upon Sundays, and from Easter to Pentecost, do 
not pray in an erect posture, but kneeling, as at other times and 
seasons of the year. Of old they used to give the Eucharist to 
infants, as is manifest from Cyprian, De lapsis’, and Augustine, in 
many passages. But this practice is now abolished. — Epiphanius, 
against Aérius, writes that Christians in his time, upon the authority 
of apostolic tradition, used to eat nothing but bread and salt for 
some days before Easter*. Do the papists do so now? Jerome, 


[! Itaque de cetero (i.e. exceptis diebus in quibus sponsus ablatus) in- 
differenter jejunandum, ex arbitrio, non ex imperio.—c. 2, p. 181.] 

[2 Ibid. c. 9.] 

[3 Exposit. Fidei Catholics, c. xxii. p. 1105. T. r. ed. Petav.] 

(4 c. 3. But Tertullian does not there pretend these traditions to be 
apostolical: he defends them on the plea of custom.] 

[5 Basil. Opp. T. 11. pp. 110, 111.] 

[6 Apud Labb. et Cossart. T. rr. col. 37.] 

[7 p. 132, ed. Fell.—The passage referred to is the story of an infant which, 
after having eaten something offered to an idol, refused the eucharistic cup, 
and turned sick when forced to drink of it.] 

[8 kal wept tov 6£ repay ro? Ilácya mas mapayyéXAova (apostoli scil.) 


XVI.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 667 


in his discourse on the nativity of Christ (though Erasmus writes 
that that piece is attributed by some to Leo, and by others to 
Maximus), says: “There is a difference of opinion in the world 
amongst men, whether this be the day whereon Christ was born, 
or whereon he was baptized?." So that he was ignorant whether 
Christ was born or baptized on that day, and whether they ought 
on that day to celebrate the memory of his nativity or of his bap- 
tism. So admirably did they preserve and understand their tradi- 
tions. The papists celebrate the feast of the assumption of the 
blessed virgin Mary with the utmost honour, and the Rhemists in 
their notes on Acts i. praise this custom exceedingly: yet Jerome, 
in his book to Paula and Eustochium, concerning the assumption 
of the blessed virgin, says that “ what is told about the translation 
of her body is apocryphal.” Erasmus, indeed, writes that that 
book is not by Jerome, but by Sophronius, who, however, was 
contemporary with Jerome. 

Such are the popish traditions which they maintain to be 
necessary, and deserving to be put on an equal footing with the 
scriptures. To all these things Bellarmine makes no other reply 
than that the church can discern true traditions from false. I 
answer, that this is the very point in debate ;—whether that 
church, to which they ascribe this power of judgment, be the 
true church, and not another, which hath now of a long time 
put off false, lying, and heretical traditions upon us for apostolical. 
Assuredly, since she is the very party accused, she can be no 
fit person to discharge the function of a judge. 

I come now to our FOURTH REASON, which is derived from 
the custom and practice of heretics. It is the wont of heretics to 
affirm that Christ and the apostles delivered some things to all, and 
some secretly to certain persons only. This Irenzeus tells us, Lib. 1. 
c. 23, of the Basilidians, and Lib. 1. c. 24, of the Carpocratians. In 
like manner speaks Tertullian, in his Prescriptions against Heretics. 
Bellarmine replies, out of Cyprian, that heretics are the apes of 
catholics. However, says he, there is this difference, that the 
heretics conceal their traditions and mysteries on account of their 


pndév OAes AMaufávew, ij dprov kal dAds kal vdaros ;——Her. LXxv. c. 6. 
p. 910, B.] 

[9 Sive hodie natus Christus sive baptizatus, diversa fertur hominum 
opinio in mundo.] 

[1° Novatianus, simiarum more, que cum homines non sint, homines tamen 
imitantur, vult ecclesie catholic auctoritatem sibi et veritatem vindicare. 
Ep. 73, p. 198.] 


668 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


shamefulness and obscenity, whereas the catholics hide theirs, 
either because it is not necessary to disclose them, or because all 
are not capable of receiving them. I answer: I confess, indeed, 
that heretics desire to seem like catholics, but they do not imitate 
them in this particular point. For it is no practice of catholics, 
that is, of those who profess sound, solid, and pure doctrine, to 
hide and conceal the mysteries of Christ: yea, they keep back no 
part of sound doctrine, but propose the whole to all. Irenzeus tells 
us that Carpocrates maintained that Christ delivered some things 
to his disciples apart secretly. But Irenzus himself, Lib. mr. c. 15, 
writes very differently, denying that Christ and his apostles 
delivered one set of things openly, and another secretly!.  Tertul- 
lian, in his Prescriptions, pronounces it an heretical proposition to 
say either that “the apostles did not know every thing, or did not 
deliver every thing to all? Yet so say the papists now: for 
although they concede that the apostles knew all, yet they do not 
concede that they delivered and promulgated all to all. Doubtless 
Ireneus and Tertullian would never have blamed the heretics for 
concealing their traditions, if the catholies for any reason concealed 
theirs. Therefore, whatever be the reason of concealing traditions, 
the very concealment itself is heretical. Christ says, Matt. x. 27: 
* What Isay unto you in darkness, that speak ye in the light; 
and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the house-tops." 
Therefore we ought not to hide or conceal any thing: for things 
whieh should be spoken on the house-tops should be delivered and 
divulged to all; not so as that this man and the other, but so as 
that all may hear them. | 

But here let us mark Bellarmine's exposition, and observe 
how neat an interpreter he is of scripture: **Preach ye upon 
the house-tops; that is," says he, **Zf need so require ;"——so as 
to save his former reply, that the catholics conceal some tra- 
ditions because there is no necessity for disclosing them. I 
answer: What sort of an exposition is this? As if it might 
be doubted whether there were any necessity for performing the 
command! Yea, it is necessary because Christ hath enjoined 
it. If they were allowed to interpret scripture thus, they might 


[1 Igitur testificatio ejus vera, et doctrina apostolorum manifesta et firma, 
et nihil substrahens, neque alia quidem in abscondito, alia vero in manifesto 
docentium.—p. 273, B. ed. Fevard.] 

[? Sed eadem dementia, cum confitentur quidem nihil apostolos ignorasse, 
... sed non omnia volunt illos omnibus revelasse, quedam palam et universis, 
quaedam secreto et paucis demandasse.—c. 25, T. m1. p. 17.] 


XVI. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 669 


easily corrupt any passage. ‘Preach upon the house-tops"— 
that is, says Bellarmine, if there be any need! We may then put 
a similar meaning upon the words, * Feed my sheep,"——that is, if 
there be any need: and, “ Teach all nations,"—-that is, if there be 
any need! From this it appears how absolutely, without any con- 
science, the papists are accustomed to deal with scripture. But 
Theophylact gives a better explanation of this place: ** What ye 
have heard from me, teach with the utmost freedom and clearness 
of speech, so as that all may hear?:" and he observes, that because 
dangers attend upon this free speaking, therefore the Lord sub- 
joins, * Fear not those who kill the body." The words are plain. 
To the like effect Christ speaks of himself, John xviii. 20: “I 
spake openly to the world: I taught ever in the synagogue and in 
the temple, whither the Jews always resort, and in secret have I 
said nothing.” Bellarmine explains it thus;—that is, I said 
nothing in secret which might not be said everywhere, as far as the 
truth and purity of my sayings were concerned. But it does not 
therefore follow, says he, that Christ taught his disciples nothing 
apart. JI answer: This is not what Christ says; but he affirms 
that he spoke every thing openly in the midst of the synagogue, 
and surrounded by the Jews. They could testify to his teaching; 
and therefore he desires that they might be asked what they had 
heard. From these premises I conclude that the whole teaching of 
Christ was public and common to all, and that Christ taught 
nothing to his disciples privately, which was not to be published to 
all Christians. 





CHAPTER XVII. 
TESTIMONIES OF THE FATHERS. 


I come now to our LAST ARGUMENT which is founded upon the 
testimony of the fathers. The fathers most clearly favour our 
opinion. However, I bring them forward not to confirm a thing 
in itself dubious and uncertain, but to shed light upon a truth 
already ascertained, and to shut the mouths of our adversaries, who 
loudly, in every question, claim the fathers as their own. I should 


[3 "Azep pdvois tiv eimov, pera mappgaías Sidaare kai peyadopoves, dore 
mavras ákovew tu@v.—Theophyl. in Matt x. 27.] 


670 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


never make an end, were I to seek to enumerate all who stand on 
our side in this matter. There is almost not one single father, 
hardly any author of any kind, who does not support our opinion 
in this controversy. Here I might distribute my testimonies into 
classes, since some tend to prove the perfection of scripture; some 
that all faith and religion should be based on scripture; some that 
the fathers are at variance about traditions: but I choose rather 
to handle those cited by Bellarmine, Lib. 1v. c. 11, and which he 
endeavours to wrest out of our hands. I will prove that those 
testimonies, the force of which he hath undertaken to obviate, are 
fit and sufficient for the confirmation of our opinion. 

The first testimony is that of IngN xus. He writes thus, Lib. 11. 
c. 1: *It is by no other that we have gained the knowledge 
of the economy of our salvation than by those by whom the 
gospel reached us; which gospel they then preached, and after- 
wards by the will of God delivered to us in the scriptures, to be 
the bases and pillar of our faith!" We must remark three things 
in these words: first, that the apostles and evangelists of Christ 
preached and published the gospel orally as Christ had commanded 
them; and that this was the entire gospel: secondly, that these 
same persons afterwards wrote it, and delivered it to us in the 
scriptures ; and that by the divine will and authority: thirdly, that 
the gospel by them committed to writing is the basis and column 
of our faith. What does Bellarmine say in reply to these things? 
Forsooth he tells us, that all things are written which the apostles 
preached commonly and openly to all, but not all other things. So 
that Irenzeus says, not that the apostles wrote all, but all that they 
preached to the people; for they did not preach all to the people ! 
He lays down, then, two propositions : one, that all things are not ne- 
cessary to all; the other, that the apostles preached to all, and left also 
in the scriptures, all those things which were necessary for all persons. 

First, he says that some things are simply necessary to 
all;—such as the Articles of the Creed, the ten Commandments, 
and some of the sacraments, (but what sacraments, he does not 
tell us;) while the rest may remain unknown without any damage 
to salvation. I answer: This distinction rests upon no authority 
or foundation of scripture, but rather plainly contradicts and 


(| Non enim per alios dispositionem salutis nostre e cognoscimus, quam 
per eos per quos evangelium pervenit ad nos; quod quidem tune preconia- 
verunt, postea vero per Dei voluntatem in scripturis nobis tradiderunt, fir- 
mamentum et columnam fidei nostre futurum.—p. 229, A.] 


xvit.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 671 


opposes it, even in the highest degree. For the scripture testifies 
that the same things are necessary for all. There is not one faith 
of a prelate or bishop, and another of a private man or laic, but 
the same of both. The Apostles’ Creed, and the other orthodox 
creeds, pertain not more to the people than to the prelates and 
masters of the church, and were published chiefly for their benefit. 
That the faith of all is one and the same, the apostle testifies, 
Ephes. iv. 5: * One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and 
Father of all, &c.” As there is, therefore, not one baptism for a 
bishop, and another for a layman, but the same for both; nor one 
God of a layman, another of a bishop, but the same of both; so 
there is not one faith of a bishop, and another of a layman, but 
the same of both. Here the apostle affirms the faith of all Chris- 
tians to be one and the same. But, lest the papists should suppose 
that I abuse this passage of scripture, I will bring forward expo- 
sitors whom they dare not reject. Thomas Aquinas writes thus 
upon this place: **'lhere is one faith, because one and the same 
thing is believed by all the faithful, whence it is called the catholic 
faith?.” So Cajetan: “ One faith, because we all believe one and 
the same thing?." Catharinus, too, hath almost the very same 
words upon this passage. Thus these men acknowledge that the 
faith of all is one and the same. Therefore, all things are equally 
necessary for all. 

Secondly, he concedes that a knowledge of the articles of 
the creed, and of the decalogue, and of some sacraments, is 
necessary. I ask what sort of knowledge he means? Assuredly 
he must mean an explicit knowledge; for he says that an explicit 
knowledge of the rest is not necessary. Now, what knowledge 
should be called explicit? Is it the mere power of repeating 
these words? By no means, for any one could most easily do 
that; but there is required besides understanding and assent. Now 
I ask, is it possible, that he who rightly understands the articles 
of the creed, that is, who understands the sense of all those 
articles, and perfectly assents to their truth, and understands in 
like manner the ten commandments, can perish, whether he be 
bishop or layman? Surely not; since he embraces with his un- 
derstanding and faith all things which pertain to salvation. Thus 
this first reply of Bellarmine’s hath no strength in it. But how 


(2 Una fides, quia unum et idem creditur a cunctis fidelibus, unde 
catholica dicitur.— Comment. in Eph. iv. 5. Basil. 1475.] 


(3 Una fides, quia unum et idem omnes credimus.—Comment. ibid.] 


672 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. l'cn. 


does Bellarmine prove his distinction? From Acts n. 41, where 
Luke tells us three thousand men were baptized in one day, and 
added to the church. These (says he) without doubt understood 
not all, but only those necessary things; wherefore they are said, 
after baptism, to have persevered in the doctrine of the apostles, 
that is, to have learned the rest which they had not yet heard. I 
answer, firstly: This is indeed to handle scripture like a Jesuit! 
He writes to prove that all things are not simply necessary to all ; 
and for this purpose he brings forward Acts n. 41. But nothing 
of the kind can be inferred from this place: for does it follow that 
these men knew what was necessary for them, therefore not what 
was necessary for all? I see, however, what he means; that they 
could not learn from one discourse all things necessary, and there- 
fore, that they learned only what were necessary for themselves. 
But he might have understood from the very words of the text, that 
this was an extraordinary case; for under ordinary circumstances 
they could not have learned so speedily even those necessary things. 
And this is plain from verse 38, where Peter said: ** Ye shall re- 
ceive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Secondly, his expounding * they 
continued," to mean, they learned what they previously were ignorant 
of, is ridiculous. To continue is to abide and persevere in known 
doctrine, not to learn new matters which we had not yet heard. 

What then, somebody will ask, is not a different sort of know- 
ledge required in a bishop from what is demanded in a laic? I 
answer: One knowledge is not necessary to salvation in a bishop, 
and another in a layman, but the same. If it were another, then 
it would differ in kind; but there is no difference of kind in this 
knowledge, but only of greater and less. And here we must note a 
self-contradiction in the Jesuit. First he concedes that these persons 
knew all things necessary before they were baptized: then he says 
that afterwards they continued, that is, learned the mysteries of the 
christian religion. But these are necessary things. Now why should 
men, especially laymen, learn some necessary things afterwards, if 
they had before learned all that was needful for them ? 

Bellarmine proceeds to prove the same point from 1 Thes- 
sal. ii. 10, where Paul wishes to come to them, that he might 
supply what was lacking to their faith. I answer: We have 
already replied to this passage. However, I ask whether these 
things which Paul wished to teach them were necessary or not? 
If necessary, then they ought not to have been baptized before 
they had learned them: Bellarmine himself confesses that adult 


XVII. | | QUESTION THE SIXTH, 673 


persons should not be baptized without an explicit knowledge and 
belief of what is necessary. But if they were not necessary, the 
apostle would not have been so eager to come to them. In neither 
way can this reply, or rather tergiversation, of our adversary stand 
consistently. -The apostle, therefore, wished to come in order to 
teach them more certainly what they had previously learned, to 
confirm the faith which they had received, and not to deliver a 
new one. 

Bellarmine replies in the second place, that the apostles preached 
to all the things which are simply necessary, but some things only 
to the prelates, bishops and presbyters. I answer: This is abso- 
lutely false and heretical. For Tertullian, in his Prescriptions, 
declares it to be the opinion of the heretics, “that the apostles 
either did not know all, or did not deliver all to all.” And Paul, 
Gal. i. 8, 9, denounces an anathema against all those, even though 
they were angels, who should preach anything beside what he had 
preached and they had received; implying that he had preached 
nothing but what they had received. Now they were the people: 
the people therefore received that gospel which Paul preached, 
and received it entire. Here we must notice a remarkable con- 
tradiction in our opponents. They say that all things are not 
delivered to the people, because all things are not necessary for 
them: and yet they produce, in proof of their traditions, such 
scriptures as 1 Cor. xi. 2, “I praise you that ye remember me in 
all things, and keep the traditions even as I delivered them unto 
you.” But these words are addressed to the people, as is plain 
from the first chapter. They produce also 2 Thess. ii. 15, ** Hold 
the traditions.” Now the apostle speaks these words to the laity 
and the people, as is clear from the first verse of the first chapter. 
Since, therefore, these traditions were preached to the people, they 
cannot confirm their traditions by the testimony of these places. 
Now that the apostle preached these to the people, is manifest from 
the consideration that otherwise he would not have praised the 
people for holding them. But if they were preached, then they 
were written too, according to the evidence of Irenzus and the 
consent of Bellarmine. Besides, we should carefully remark and 
remember that Bellarmine, coerced by inevitable force of reason, 
confesses that all those things which are simply necessary, and for 
all, are written: whence it follows that no traditions are necessary 
either simply or for all. 

But let us look at the reasons by which he seeks to prove that 


[ WHITAKER. | ze 


674 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


the same things are not necessary for all persons. The first is, because 
what are taught in the schools, and what are preached in sermons 
to the people, are not the same things: therefore the same things 
are not necessary for all. JI answer: The mode of treating them 
is different, but the things handled are the same. The same things 
are taught in the schools and in the churches, but in a different 
manner; popularly in the churches, accurately and precisely in the 
schools. The second reason is taken from Acts xx. 17, 18, where 
Paul taught the elders of the church of Ephesus apart from the 
people. I answer: He did indeed teach them apart, but nothing 
else than what he had taught all: for being unable to address the 
whole church, he sent for the elders. Now that he taught them 
nothing else is clear from Luke, who hath set forth the sum of that 
discourse. The third reason is taken from 1 Cor. ii. 6, * We speak 
wisdom amongst them that are perfect.” I answer: lrensus, Lib. 
i. c. 2,1 bears witness that the heretics formerly abused this passage 
to support the same opinion (or rather madness) as the papists of 
the present time, as we have before observed. The fourth reason 
is taken from 2 Tim. ii. 2, ** Those things which thou hast heard of 
me before many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, 
who shall be able to teach others also." I answer: I have already 
given a sufficiently large reply to this place. The fifth reason is 
taken from lrenzus, Lib. rv. c. 43?, where Irenszus says that the 
apostles delivered to their successors along with the episcopate a 
certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. 
I answer, that the apostles delivered to their successors the gift of 
knowledge not only orally, but by writing also: for he says, Lib. 
nr, c. 1, that they not only preached, but delivered it also in the 
scriptures. 

These pretences then being refuted, the testimony of Irenzeus 
stands unimpeached. The apostles preached and wrote the gospel ; 
they preached it all; they wrote it all: and therefore he sub- 
joins, that it is the basis and pillar of our faith. And to make 

(! Cum enim ex scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur ipsa- 
rum scripturarum,... quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his qui | 
nesciant traditionem : non enim per literas traditam illam, sed per vivam 
vocem; ob quam causam et Paulum dixisse, Sapientiam autem loquimur inter 
perfectos.—p. 230. B.] 

[2 Quapropter eis qui in ecclesia sint presbyteris obaudire oportet, his 
qui suecessionem habent ab apostolis, sicut ostendimus, qui cum episcopatus 


suecessione charisma veritatis certum, secundum placitum Patris, acceperunt. 
—pp. 381—2.] 


xvi] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 675 


it evident that Irenzus in this place speaks of no mere popular 
gospel, that is, of something suited merely to the people, he says, 
“we know the economy of our salvation," and “it hath reached 
us." Now he was a bishop; therefore he speaks of that gospel 
which contained all that was necessary, even for bishops. Besides, 
Irenzeus writes in other places also against traditions. In Lib. 11. 
c. 47, he says that “the scriptures are perfect, being spoken by 
the Word of God and his Spirit?." And, Lib. rr. c. 2, he refutes 
the assertion of the heretics, that the apostles delivered some things 
secretly and apart; which subject he pursues at greater length in 
the third chapter of that same book. And, Lib. rv. c. 26, he says 
that “the precepts of a perfect life are the same in both Testa- 
ments‘.” Therefore all things which pertain to doctrine or morals 
are contained in the scriptures, and not merely some of them: for 
he says “of a perfect life," which is the thing denied by the papists. 
And, Lib. v. c. 17, he says that we should “ betake ourselves to 
the church, be reared in its bosom, and nourished by the scriptures 
of the Lord.” Then he subjoins: “ For the paradise of the church 
is planted in this world. Therefore, says the Spirit of God, ‘of every 
tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat;’ that is, eat of every 
scripture of the Lord: but eat not of the transcendental sense, nor 
touch any heretical heterodoxy®.” Therefore, as there was no other 
food whereof Adam could eat in paradise but the fruit of the trees, 
so he that is placed in the garden of the church should desire no 
other food for his soul beside the scriptures. Thus it is clear that 
Irenzus is opposed to unwritten traditions; and his custom was to 
use no other arms against the heretics save those of scripture; as 
Erasmus hath truly remarked in his preface to Irenseus: “ He fights 
with no other defence than scripture against a host of heretics.” 
Our second witness against traditions is Or1GEN, who opposes 
them in many places: for example, in his Gommentary on Rom. iii., 
Hom. 25 in Matth., Hom. 3 in Genes., Hom. 31 in Gen., Hom. 7 

[3 Scriptures quidem perfecte, quippe a Verbo Dei et Spiritu ejus dicte. 
—p. 203. 4.] 

{4 Consummatze enim vitz» precepta in utroque testamento cum sint 
eadem, &c.—p. 344. 4.] 

[5 Fugere igitur oportet sententias ipsorum .... confugere autem ad 
ecclesiam, et in ejus sinu educari, et Dominicis scripturis enutriri. Plantata 
est enim ecclesiz paradisus in hoc mundo: ab omni ergo ligno paradisi escas 
manducabis, ait Spiritus Dei, id est, ab omni scriptura Dominica manducate: 


superelato autem sensu ne manducaveritis, neque tetigeritis universam 
hereticam dissensionem.—ce. 20, p. 466. B.] 


A3—2 


676 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


in Ezech., Hom. 1 in Jerem. In the last-mentioned place he 
writes as follows: “It is necessary for us to cite the testimony 
of the holy scriptures. For our opinions and discourses have no 
credit, unless confirmed by their witness. And that saying, ‘ By the 
mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be confirmed,’ 
agrees rather to the proof of an interpreter than to any number 
of mere human testimonies; and means, that I should establish the 
word of my understanding by taking two witnesses from the old 
and new Testaments; or taking three, from the Gospel, from the 
prophets, and from the apostles. For so shall every word be 
established!" In these words Origen testifies that our judgments, 
discourses, and opinions have no credit without scripture. Bellarmine 
replies, that he speaks of certain very abstruse questions, of which 
nature those generally are not which rest upon the testimony of 
tradition. I answer: In the first place, it is absurd that those 
things which rest on tradition should be not as abtruse and obscure 
as those which were delivered in the scriptures. For what? Are 
those things which pertain solely to prelates and bishops easier 
than those which are openly propounded to the people? Who can 
fail to perceive that Bellarmine here talks contradictions? Secondly, 
Origen speaks generally of all questions, whether clear or obscure. 
And the same thing appears also from his Commentary upon 
Rom. ii., where he has an admirable remark; saying that Paul 
“sets an example to the teachers of the church to bring forward 
what they say to the people” (not meaning therefore obscure 
questions), “‘not as presumed by their own reasonings, but fortified 
by divine testimony." Besides, he subjoins: * If even the apostle 
himself, such and so great as he was, thinks that the authority of 
his words is not sufficient without shewing that what he says is 
written in the law and the prophets; how much rather should we, 
who are the least, observe, when we teach, not to bring forward 
our own judgments, but those of the Holy Spirit?!” 


[! Maprupas Set AaBe tas ypadds: dydprvpor yap ai émiBoAal ruv kal 
eEnyjoes amiotol elgw* émi oTÓpara dvo kai rpuOv paprüpev orabnoerar Tay 
püpa, paddov dpuó(ev émi trav Sinynoewy 7 emt trav avOpdrar, iva orjcc Ta 
pupara ths épunveias, AaBov páprvpas dvo dmó Kawhs kai madaas Srabnens, 
AaBov paptupas tpeis amd evayyeXiov, amd mpopyrov, awd ámoaróXov: ovTws yàp 
orabyoerat Trav pua.—p. 57. ed. Huet. Colon. 1685. Whitaker, in the text, 
has taken the old Latin version, which is therefore followed in the trans- 
lation. ] 

[? Doctoribus ecclesie prebet exemplum, ut ea qu: loquuntur ad popu- 


xvir.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 671 


The same author, Hom. 25 in Matth., writes thus: ** The temple 
of the glory of God is all inspired scripture, and the gold is the 
meaning lodged in it. We ought, therefore, in evidence of every 
word that we utter in teaching to produce the sense of scripture as a 
confirmation of the sense which we expound. For, as all the gold 
outside the temple is unsanctified, so every sense which is beside 
the holy scripture (however admirable it may seem) is not holy, be- 
cause it is not contained by the sense of scripture, which sanctifies 
only that sense which it hath in itself, as the temple does its own 
gold. We ought not then in confirmation of our doctrine to swear 
our own meanings, and produce as it were in evidence what each of 
us understands and deems true, without shewing that it is sanctified 
by being contained in the holy scriptures as it were in the temples 
of God.  Foolish and blind are those that know not that the 
temple, that is, the reading of the scripture, makes a sense great 
and venerable like consecrated gold?." The same author, Hom. 10 
in Genes, writes thus upon the words, * Rebecca went daily to 
the well:” “This is the instruction of souls which instructs and 
teaches thee to come daily to the wells of scripture, the waters of 
the Holy Spirit, and to draw continually, and bring home a vessel 
full, as also did the holy Rebecca.” And Hom. 3 in Gen. he 
writes thus: ** Circumcised and clean is he, who always speaks the 
word of God, and brings forward sound doctrine fortified by the 


lum, non propriis presumta sententiis, sed divinis munita testimoniis pro- 
ferant. Si enim ipse tantus et talis apostolus auctoritatem dictorum suorum 
sufficere posse non credit, nisi doceat in lege et prophetis scripta esse que 
dieit: quanto magis nos minimi hoc observare debemus, ut non nostras, cum 
docemus, sed Sancti Spiritus sententias proferamus!—Origen. Opp. T. rv. 
p. 504, Paris. 1733.] 

[? Templum glorie Dei est omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata, aurum 
autem positus sensus in ea. Debemus ergo ad testimonium omnium verbo- 
rum, que proferimus in doctrina, proferre sensum scripturee, quasi confir- 
mantem quem exponimus sensum. Sicut enim omne aurum, quodquod fuerit 
extra templum, non est sanctificatum ; sic omnis qui fuerit extra divinam 
scripturam (quamvis admirabilis videatur quibusdam) non est sanctus, quia 
non continetur a sensu scripture, quee solet eum solum sensum sanctificare 
quem habet in se, sicut templum proprium aurum. Non ergo debemus ad 
confirmandam doctrinam nostram proprios sensus jurare, et quasi testimonia 
assumere, quos unusquisque nostrum intelligit, et secundum veritatem existi- 
mat esse, ni ostenderit eos sanctos esse ex eo quod in scripturis continetur 
divinis, quasi in templis quibusdam Dei.  Stulti ergo et ceeci omnes qui non 
cognoscunt, quoniam templum, id est, lectio scripturarum, magnum et 
venerabilem facit sensum, sicut aurum sacratum.— T. m1. p. 842 ] 


678 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. 


rules of the evangelists and apostles!” So much from Origen, to 
whose testimony, thus unembarrassed, clear and pertinent to the 
point, Bellarmine answers not a word. 

Our third testimony is that of ConsTANTINE the great, as given 
by Theodoret, Lib. 1. c. 7, who thus addressed the fathers assembled 
in the council of Nice: ** The evangelic and apostolic books, together 
with the oracles of the old prophets, plainly instruct us what we 
ought to think on divine subjects. Let us then, laying aside all 
hostile discord, resolve the debated questions by the testimony of 
the inspired scriptures?" In these words two things deserve to 
be considered: first, that the scriptures of the old and new Testa- 
ments teach us, and that plainly (capes), what we should think 
concerning the things of God: secondly, that we ought, therefore, 
to decide every controversy by the words of inspiration. 

Bellarmine objects, first, that Constantine was a great emperor, 
but not a great doctor. I answer: In the first place, I confess that 
he was not a bishop or doctor of the church ; but yet I affirm him to 
have been a pious and learned man, studious of religion and very 
useful to the church. This is plain from Theodoret, 1. 24 : for when 
bishops were rending the church and disturbing its peace, he pre- 
served it with a tender and remedial solicitude. Secondly, no 
bishop, either of those present at the Nicene council or of those 
who afterwards flourished in the church, ever blamed these words 
uttered by Constantine in the midst of the Nicene fathers. Now 
if they were not orthodox, doubtless somebody would have either 
interfered upon the spot, or at some time or other warned the 
church against them. Constantine desires this dispute to be de- 
termined by the scriptures of the evangelists, apostles, and prophets. 
And Evagrius, Histor., Lib. 11.3, testifies that similar expressions 
were used by John, bishop of Antioch, in the council of Ephesus ; 
which were also approved by Cyril of Alexandria. Secondly, he 
objects, that the confirmation of those dogmas which touch and 


[1 Circumcisus et mundus est qui semper verbum Dei loquitur, et sanam 
doctrinam, evangelicis et apostolicis munitam regulis, profert. ] 

[? ebayyeukai yap [S(8Xot kai dmocroMikal, kai rGv maAatQv mwpodgróv rà 
Ocoricpata, cajós juads à xpr) mepi Tov Üc(ov Qpoveiv exmaWevovot. Tv Tode- 
pomoiv otv áreAágavres Epi, ex Tov Ücorveborov Aóyov AaBopev TAY (gyrovgévov 
Tiv Avow.—p. 25. n. ed. Vales. Paris. 1673.] 

[3 The reference meant is, I suppose, Lib. 1. c. 6. p. 261. n. Paris, 1673; 
where Cyril speaks of his joy at finding that John of Antioch and he had the 
same faith, rais Ocomvetoros ypadQais kai mapaddéce: róv dyíev judy marépov 
evpBatvovcar. | 


XVIL | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 679 


relate to the divine nature may be deduced from scripture, but that 
the true sense of scripture depends upon the unwritten tradition of 
the church. I answer: In the first place, perhaps the occasion of 
his thus trifling arose from the words cepi tov Oetov. And so in- 
deed Harding, in the book which he wrote against the English Apo- 
logy, seeks to elude this testimony. But Harding makes a shameful 
mistake; and Bellarmine too, if he be in the same opinion, hath 
fallen into a shameful hallucination. For cep: coU Oeíov denotes 
not only, “concerning those things which pertain to the divine 
nature," but also, as Cassiodorus hath translated it, ‘ concerning 
the divine will, or the divine law.” The very translator whom 
Bellarmine follows renders it, * concerning divine things ;” and so 
indeed it ought to be rendered. And Theodoret himself, in the 
words immediately preceding, hath the expression epi tav Oeiwy 
T pa^yua Tov, that is, “of things relating to faith and religion." 
Then he says that **we have the teaching of the Holy Spirit in a 
written form," coU mavaryiov vrvevua-os &icac kaALav d vá*ypa rov 
€yovras. Besides, Constantine says, “ Let us take from scripture 
Tov (urovuévov TyHv vow,” that is, the solution not of this or 
that question, but of all questions. Secondly, in asserting that 
the true sense of scripture depends upon the unwritten tradition 
of the church, he openly makes the scriptures inferior to the church, 
of which yet he elsewhere indicates a disapproval. For if the true 
sense of scripture depend upon the church, then it is plain that the 
credit and authority of the church is greater than of scripture: 
since the true sense of scripture follows the unwritten tradition of 
the church; and what else is scripture but the sense of scripture? 
The falsehood of Bellarmine’s third objection, that the Arians were 
not convicted and condemned by the testimony of scripture, is clear 
from c. 8,* of this same book of Theodoret, ¢& évy«ypádwv nec 
evae(3elas €vvoovuévev Ac£eov KaTexpiOncay: and from Socrates, 
Lib. 1. c. 6, ** We have often refuted them by unrolling (or ex- 
plaining) the scriptures®.” For, although Socrates wrote this not 
of the Nicene council, but of that at Alexandria, composed only of 
a few bishops and presbyters, yet every one sees that the Arians 
were most plainly condemned by scripture: unless indeed it be 
supposed that scripture had more efficacy at Alexandria than at: 


[* Where, however, another reading is, é£ dypdpev per edoeBelas voovpe- 
vov.—p. 29. A. See Valesius’ note. ] 

[5 kai radra Aéyovres kal dvanticoovtes Tas Ücías ypadas moAddkts dverpé- 
Wapev abrovs.—p. 11. B. ed. Vales. ] 


680 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ CH. 


Nice. And what else did Athanasius do but condemn Arius out 
of scripture ? 

Our fourth testimony is taken from ATuanastus, in his book 
against the Gentiles or idols: * The scriptures are sufficient for 
every purpose of instruction or education in the truth'." Bellar- 
mine replies, that Chemnitz hath added the word “every” out of 
his own head. I answer: He did indeed add, but he hath not 
thereby changed the sense: for that this is Athanasius' meaning, 
is apparent from the place itself, which occurs in the beginning of 
the book. In the next place, Bellarmine answers that Athanasius 
speaks in that book of only two dogmas: one of which is, that idols 
should not be worshipped; the other, Christ's twofold nature, or 
that Christ was truly both God and man. I answer: That these 
two points are indeed handled in the books to Macarius; but this is 
no reason for not extending it in its force and application to all other 
dogmas, or taking it in a general sense. Thirdly, he concedes that 
scripture is sufficient, but not without the explication of the fathers. 
I answer: But by this explication of the fathers Bellarmine means 
unwritten traditions. If he meant the interpretation of the fathers, 
we should feel less reluctant to admit it. And yet even the inter- 
pretations of the fathers are not simply necessary; because there 
was a time when there were no patristic interpretations, and never- 
theless the scriptures were understood. And Athanasius himself 
writes expressly in that same place, that the truth of scripture is 
known, and “clearer than the sun.” Then he subjoins, “ the scrip- 
tures are sufficient ;" and afterwards he says, that the fathers must 
be read on account of some men’s perverseness, who will not receive 
what is plain and manifest. Whence it appears that he means, that 
‘the fathers are not universally or simply necessary to the under- 
standing of the scriptures. The same author, in his third book 
against the Arians, says: * By hearing the scriptures we are led 
into faith.” This is the very point which we have proved above, 
from Rom. x., * Faith is by hearing, and hearing by the word of 
God." And in his Synopsis he says, that “holy scripture con- 
tained in certain books is the anchor and support of our faith?.” 
Therefore, our faith is not supported by traditions, but by the 
scriptures. 

Our fifth testimony is that of Basm the great, de Confessione 


l 3.8 M , , 4 * Ó , M ji x ^ 
[! atrdpkeis pév yap eiow ai ayia kai Oedmvevoror ypadhal mpós Tv Ths 
adnbcias amayyedav.—T. 1. p. 1. Paris. 1598. ] 

[2 ris mictews "v ofovei dxpoOina 7 &ykvpat kai épeicpatra,—T, 1I. p. 127. ] 


XVII. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 681 


Fidei, where he writes thus: ‘It is a manifest piece of infidelity, 
and incurs a just charge of arrogance, either to reject what is 
written, or to add anything which is not written?." It is a very 
remarkable passage. Bellarmine replies that this place of Basil is 
meant to refer, not to apostolical traditions, but to those things 
which are contrary to scripture and invented by private persons. 
I answer: These words do most clearly confirm the perfection of 
scripture. For Basil had said a little before, *I am bound to pro- 
pose to you those things which I have learned from the divinely 
inspired scripture, according to the good pleasure of God, for the 
common profit. For if the Lord himself, in whom the Father was 
well-pleased, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and 
knowledge, who hath received from the Father all power and all 
judgment, says, ‘He gave me a commandment what I should speak 
and what I should say ;’ and again, ‘ Those things, therefore, which 
I speak unto you, as the Father hath said unto me, even so I 
speak ;’ and if the Holy Spirit speaketh not of himself, but what- 
soever he heareth from him; how much more is it at once pious 
and safe for us to think and do this in the name of our Lord 
Jesus Christ!’ And afterwards he says: “If the Lord be 
faithful in all his words, and all his commandments are faithful, 
standing fast for ever and ever, done in truth and equity ;" then 
he subjoins the words which we previously introduced, namely :— 
* It is a manifest incurring of the crime of infidelity and arrogance, 
either to reject anything that is written, or add anything that is 
not written." Then follows: “Since our Lord Jesus Christ says, 
‘My sheep hear my voice,’ premising, ‘a stranger will they not 
follow, but flee from him, for they know not the voice of strangers;’ 
and the apostle, by an example taken from the case of men,” 
earnestly prohibits the adding to, or taking from, the scriptures of 
God, when he says, ‘Though it were but a man’s testament, yet, 


, ^ ^ 
[3 $avepà ékmrects mioTeos kai Umepnpavias Katnyopia 3) dÜereiv te Tdv 
^ ^ \ - . 
yeypappévov, 3) émewdyew TOV py *yeypaupévov.—T. 11. p. 251. A. Paris. 1618. ] 
[4 Kayo ámep Euabov ék ths Ocomvevotov ypads, ra)ra ipiv wapabécba 
\ A > , ^ M \ ^ ^, > , $7 *, A 3. € 
xarà TO dpéckov OeQ mpós TO kou avpQépov odeuérgs eipi. Ei yap avrós 6 
, > e iA ¢ M > x > , e 0 \ ^ ; 
Kuptos, ev @ evddknoev 6 mar)p, év o eiot müvres oi Óncavpol ths codías 
kal Tis yvoceos andkpupot, 6 mücav pév Tiv éfovcíav mücav dé rjv Kpiow 
Aágev mapa Tov marpós, EvroA)v Sédaxé pot dol, ti etre kai Tí AaXjoo* 
^ , ^ > QN ^ M " ^ e ^ e ^ QA 1 
kai madi, à oUv éyoó ada, kaÜós «eipnké pot 6 mar?p oUro add: kal Td 
^ M e $59 e ^ > ^ , Mat ^ , , > > ^ ^ 
Tvevpa TO áytov ad  éavroU ov AaXei, GAN’ óca ay akovon Tap’ abro), radra 
^ ^ € ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ 
AaAei: móc pàXXov yyy evoeBes Te Gpod Kai aopades Tovto povety Kai moteiv 
ev dvépate Tov K. y. I. X.—Ibid. pp. 249, 250.] 


682 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


when it is confirmed, no man disannulleth or addeth thereto ;’ con- 
sequently, we know that now and always we should flee all words 
and sentiments alien from the doctrine of the Lord!" 

Basil, therefore, testifies that all points of faith, whatever they 
may be, are found in the scriptures; and therefore that those persons 
violate the testament of God, who seek other doctrines outside the 
scriptures. He condemns, therefore, all others as strange and foreign, 
£éva and addorpia. But Bellarmine observes that Basil, in that 
same place, says that he was compelled to use unwritten discourses 
against the heretics. I answer: he did indeed use unwritten (not 
discourses, but) expressions; yet such as were not foreign from scrip- 
ture, and its orthodox sense. He employed no new doctrines, but 
new terms, and those such as introduced no new sense: for he 
says that these words are not “foreign from the pious meaning of 
scripture.” Although those terms were strange in expression, yet 
they contained no strange meaning, but preserved the ** sense which 
lay in the scriptures.” Consequently, he determines those to be 
strange, and false, and deserving to be rejected, which have not 
the meaning which lies in the scriptures. He clearly refers there- 
fore, not to dogmas, but to certain terms not actually used in 
scripture, such as ‘Opoovctov, and others of the like sort, which he 
was accustomed to use in disputing against the heretics. There is 
another place, in his eightieth epistle to Eustathius the physician, 
where Basil writes as follows: ** We do not think it just and equi- 
table, that the manner of speaking which obtains amongst them 
should be made the rule and canon of orthodox doctrine. If eustom 
be indeed the test to try right doctrine, let us by all means be 
permitted also to follow their example. Let us stand then by the 
arbitration of the holy scriptures, and let the sentence of truth be 
certainly adjudged to those with whom are found doctrines conso- 
nant to the oracles of God?.” Bellarmine says that he is speaking 


LI ^ , € ^ 5, ^ ^ >) , A 3 4 , e^ $3. ^ 
[1 ToU kvpiov nuady “Incod XpioToU eimóvros, rà épà mpóBara THs Euns ovtjs 
> , N \ s M > , 5 , ^ > M > , 5 M 
dkovei* kai mpd rovrov Oé cipnkóros, dAXorpío Sé ov p; akoAovÓnacecw, adda 
, 2 x» > ^ ^ ^ > , > € , > # 
ghevEovrar am aitov, K.T.À. Kal Tod amoorddov ev trodeiypate avOporive 
* b 5 , \ ^ ^ c ^ > ^ , 
apodpdrepoy dmayopevovros Td mpocbeivar 3) tpedeiv te ev rais Oeomvevorots 
ypahais, 06 ov dnow, k.T. A.  mücav pév ovy addotpiav Tis Tod Kupiov Oia- 
ckaAías doviy kal evvoiav ovTws neis müvrore kai viv dmodQevyew eyvoxKaper. 
—Ibid. p. 251. x. c.] 
9 > , , - M > > ^ > ^ 16 / 
[2 od vopigopev Óikatov eivat THY map avrois éziwparoücav cvvuÜeuav vópov 
M , od 4 ^ ^ 0 /, 5 M > / > > 2 48 > 06 
xai kavóva Tod OpÓoU mroveicOar Adyov. ei yap ioxvpóv eaotiy eis amdderv 0p66- 
Tyros 5") ovvnbea, fear kai piv mavrws avtimpoBaréaba thy map. nuiv émikpa- 
^ ^ ^ > 
Tovoav cvvjÜcuav. Ei 06 mapaypapovra ravtnv éxeivor, juiv mavtws dkoXovÓn- 


XVII. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 683 


not of any tradition received by the whole church, but of particular 
customs. I answer: It is an important question which is handled 
and discussed in this place; namely, whether we may say that 
there are three persons and one Godhead, tpets vrocraces kai 
piav Oeotnra. Some persons alleged and urged custom; but he 
says it is not fit that ** custom should be the rule," róuos kai kavov 
ToU opÜoU Xo-yov. Then he subjoins the sentence quoted above; 
wherein he shews, first, that the divine oracles and the scriptures 
are the same thing; secondly, that those doctrines which agree 
with the scriptures should be received, and all others rejected. 
And so much for the testimony of Basil. 

Our sixth testimony is taken from some sentences of Cnnvso- 
stom. In Hom. 1 in Matt. he says: ** There is need of scripture, 
because many corrupt doctrine.” In Hom. 13 in Genes.? he says: 
‘Scripture does not permit the hearer of it to go wrong." Then 
he subjoins : ** But, because most people lend an ear to those who 
handle these subjects, not in order to gain some edification from 
the holy seriptures, but to be amused; and, therefore, seek to 
hear not those who profit, but those who entertain them best; I 
beseech you therefore, that, closing your ears to all such, we may 
together follow the standard set by the canon of holy scripture." 
In his 3rd Homily upon 2 Thess.* he says that all necessary things 
are clear in the scriptures. To all these Bellarmine replies only 
by the question: * For what purpose are these alleged?" I 
answer, by shewing the purpose, thus: If the gospel was committed 
to writing lest it should be corrupted, then all parts of it are 
written, because no part of it should be corrupted. If the scrip- 
tures were written lest we should err, then all things are written, 
because we should not err in any thing. If all things ought to be 
referred to this canon of scripture, then scripture is the perfect rule 
of all our actions and articles of faith. If all necessary things are 
plain in the scriptures, then nothing beside the scriptures is neces- 
sary. The same author, Opus Imperf. in Matt. Hom. 49, writes 
thus: * Then, when ye shall see the abomination of desolation 
standing in the holy place, that is, when ye shall see impious 
heresy, which is the army of antichrist, standing in the holy places 


Téov ékeivoig, oükoüv 7] Ücómvevaros riv Ouargoáro ypadn: xai wap ots ay 
evpeOn rà Oóypara avvqOà rois Üeíous Aóyow, emt TovTos ker mávros [5j Oeial 
tis dAXnÓeías Wipos.—T. ri. p. 901. B. Whitaker has, as the reader will 
perceive, omitted a whole clause in his translation of this passage.] 

[3 Tom. tv. p. 103.] [4 Tom. xt. p. 528.] 


684 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


of the church; then let those that are in Judea flee to the moun- 
tains; that is, let those who are in Christianity betake themselves 
to the scriptures. For as the true Jew is the Christian, (accord- 
ing to the saying of the apostle, ‘ He is not a Jew who is one out- 
wardly, but he who is one inwardly,’) so the true Judxa is 
Christianity, the name Judea being, by interpretation, confession. 
Now the mountains are the scriptures of the apostles and prophets, 
concerning which it is said, ‘ Thou givest wonderful light from the 
eternal mountains ;’ and again, it is said of the church, * Her foun- 
dations are on the holy hills’!.” 

Bellarmine replies, that not Chrysostom, but some heretic, was 
the author of these homilies. I answer: Some do, indeed, sup- 
pose. that these homilies were written by one Maximus, who was 
an Arian; yet the book is an useful one, and this opinion is a 
pious one, consonant not only with the scriptures, but with the 
other fathers. Augustine, de Pastoribus, c. 12, says: “ Hear 
the voice of the Shepherd: draw to the mountains of the holy 
scripture.” And the reason which he uses, and which follows 
in that same place, proves the truth of this sentence.  ** And 
wherefore does he bid all Christians to betake themselves to the 
scriptures ? Because at this time, since heresy hath prevailed in 
those churches, there can be no other proof of true Christianity, 
no other refuge for true Christians, who desire to know the truth 
of faith, save the scriptures of God. Formerly it was shewn 
in many ways, what was the true church of Christ, and what 
paganism; but now those who wish to know what is the true 
church of Christ, have no other means of knowing but the holy 
scriptures. Why so? Because, even those churches which are in 


{1 Tune cum videritis abominationem desolationis stantem in loco 
sancto, id est, cum videritis heresim impiam, que est exercitus antichristi, 
stantem in locis sanctis ecclesie; in illo tempore, qui in Judza sunt, fugiant 
ad montes, id est, qui sunt in Christianitate conferant se ad scripturas. Sicut 
enim verus Judzeus est Christianus, dicente apostolo, Non qui in manifesto 
Judzus est, sed qui in occulto; sic vera Judea Christianitas est, cujus 
nomen intelligitur confessio. Montes autem sunt scripture apostolorum 
aut prophetarum, de quibus dietum est, Illuminas tu mirabiliter a monti- 
bus eternis; et iterum de ecclesia dicit, Fundamenta ejus in montibus 
sanctis.— Chrys. Opp. T. vi. col. 204. Paris. 1718—38. The quotation, 
*]luminas tu mirabiliter, &c., is from the Vulgate version, Ps. Ixxvi. 4, 
which here, as usual, follows the LXX.  $oerí(es ov Óavpaorós and ópéov 
aiwviov. They probably conjectured that "2 should be read pna. This 
piece is falsely ascribed to Chrysostom.] — * 


xvir.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 685 


schism have all things which truly belong to Christ: they have churches 
as wellas we; the holy seriptures themselves as well as we ; bishops 
and the other orders of the clergy as well as we; baptism as well 
as we; the eucharist as well as we, and all the rest; finally, they 
have Christ himself. If, then, one desires to know which is the 
true church of Christ, where the points of resemblance are so con- 
founded, whence can he know it but from the holy scriptures? 2" 
And more to the same purpose follows in the same writer. 

There is another passage of Chrysostom's, in his homily on Ps. 
xev., where he writes thus: * We should not say any thing without 
evidence, out of the mere device of our own minds. If any thing be 
spoken without proof from scripture, the thoughts of the hearers 
stumble, now assenting, now hesitating, sometimes turning from the 
discourse as frivolous, sometimes receiving it as specious. But when 
.the testimony of the voice of God is uttered from the scripture, it 
confirms at once the discourse of him who speaks, and the mind of 
him who hears." Thus Chrysostom. Nothing therefore must be 
said beside the scripture, lest the thoughts of the hearer should 
halt or vacillate. Bellarmine replies, that what is here prohibited 
is the saying any thing out of our own inventions, because what is 
so said does not so easily win assent as that which is confirmed by 
scripture. I answer: What a ridiculous subterfuge is this! For 
that which is said out of our own inventions would be utterly 
rejected. But what Chrysostom says is, that nothing should be 
said without evidence, merely of our own thoughts, and without 
scripture ; intimating, that every thing which is said without the 
testimony of seripture is spoken merely from our own thoughts, 
without evidence, and of our own invention. For if any thing of 


(2 Audite vocem pastoris; colligite vos ad montes scripture sancte. ... Et 
quare jubet hoc tempore omnes Christianos conferre se ad scripturas? Quia 
in tempore hoc, ex quo obtinuit hzresis illas ecclesias, nulla probatio potest 
esse verze Christianitatis, neque refugium potest esse Christianorum aliud, 
volentium cognoscere fidei veritatem, nisi scripture divinse. ^ Antea enim 
multis modis ostendebatur, quse esset ecclesia Christi et que gentilitas. 
Nune autem nullo modo cognoscitur volentibus cognoscere que sit vera 
ecclesia Christi, nisi tantummodo per scripturas. Quare? Quia omnia que 
sunt proprie Christi in veritate, habent et hzereses illee in schismate, simi- 
liter ecclesias, similiter et ipsas scripturas divinas, similiter episcopos 
eeterosque ordines clericorum, similiter baptismum, similiter eucharistiam, 
et cetera omnia; denique ipsum Christum. Volens ergo quis cognoscere 
quie sit vera ecclesia Christi, unde cognoscat in tanta confusione similitu- 
dinis, nisi tantummodo per scripturas ?— T. 1x. p. 279, et seqq.] 


686 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cH. 


this sort be said, it will be uncertain, and bring the minds of the 
hearers into doubt and hesitation. The same Chrysostom, Hom. 
13 in 2 Corinth. writes thus: “How can it be other than absurd to 
refuse to trust others in the matter of money, and to count and 
reckon it ourselves, and yet in far more important matters to 
follow simply other men's opinions; especially when we have, in the 
sentence of the divine laws, the most exact balance, and standard, 
and rule of all things? Therefore, I beseech and implore you to 
leave asking what this man or the other thinks, and to seek the 
resolution of all these inquiries from the scriptures!.” Bellarmine 
brings a pitiable and foolish reply. He says, that Chrysostom 
speaks of those who prefer riches to poverty, whereas scripture 
teaches the contrary. I answer: Chrysostom speaks not of this 
only, but says that we have the most exact balance and perfect 
rule of all things, aravrwyr, in the declaration of the laws of God, 
anopacw àv Oclor vouev. How he understands this, is shewn 
by his subjoining, rapa Tov ypapev Tavra wavta wuvOavecOe. 
Therefore he admonishes us not to be anxious about the opinions of 
the many, but to examine all things for ourselves; and he illus- 
trates it by a comparison: ‘ We examine money by counting and 
reckoning it: now we ought to be much more careful about such 
matters as these.’ 

Our seventh testimony is from Epipuanius, Heres. 61. This 
is produced by Bellarmine. But there is a still clearer testimony, 
Heres. 69, where Epiphanius assigns the reason why he gives the 
title Aryxupwros to his book,——because he collected the doctrine of 
God out of the whole scripture, to be as it were an anchor?. 
Therefore the scripture is the anchor of our faith. And a little 
after, in the same place, he says, that Christ is called the corner- 
stone, because *he hath constructed for us the new and the old 
Testaments?," | 

Our eighth testimony is that of Cyri, in his book, De Fide ad 


[| Hós yàp oix dromov vmép pev xpupárov pn érépots motevery, GAN’ apiOyue 
kat Ye ToÜro emitpémenv, imép S€ mpaypdtav WnpiCopevovs ámAós rais éré- 
pov mapagüpeaÓa. ddéas, kai tadra ákpiBij (vyóv ámávrev Éxovras kai *yvopova 
kal kavóva TOv ÓÉeíov vópev thy dmódQaciu. S16 mapakaAG kai Seopa mávrov 
ipav, ddévres ti Ta Oei. kai rà Sein Soxet mepi rovrov, mapa Trav ypapov 
taira ümavra muvOaverbe.—Chrysost. Comment. T. v. pp. 636, 7. Paris. 
1633.] 

[? c. xxvii. p. 751—2. ed. Petav. T. 1.] 

[3 Oia rà émioiy£a. maXaiàv. kal véav. diabjxnv.—Ib. c. xxxv. p. 758. D.] 


XVII. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 687 


Reginas, where he hath these words: “ It is needful for us to fol- 
low the holy scriptures, and in nothing to depart from what they 
prescribe.” Bellarmine says that he only affirms that no new 
dogmas should be broached contrary to the scriptures. I answer: 
Cyril refers us to the directions of scripture as perfect. For he 
plainly affirms the sufficiency of scripture, Lib. xir. in Joann. c. 
68.: * All things which the Lord did are not written, but those 
which the writers thought sufficient, both for practice and for doc- 
trine; that we, resplendent with the glory of orthodox faith and 
works and virtue, might attain to the kingdom of heaven‘.” The 
same author, Hom. 5 in Levit. writes as follows: **I (as far as the 
capacity of my judgment permits me to form an opinion) suppose 
that in these two days we may understand the two Testaments, 
wherein it is lawful that every word pertaining to God (for this is 
meant by sacrifice) should be searched out and examined, and that 
the understanding of all things should be taken from these; but 
if any thing remain, which the scripture of God determines not, that 
no other third scripture should be received for the confirmation of 
our knowledge (which is here called the third day), but we should 
commit what remains to the fire, that is, reserve it for God." Bel- 
larmine hath two replies: first, that Cyril was not the author of 
these homilies, but Origen, or somebody else, who (says he) every- 
where destroys the letter to establish his own mystical sense. I 
answer: It makes no difference whether the piece be Cyril's or 
Origen's: the authority of both is equal. This author does in- 
deed pursue allegories, as the other fathers do; yet this sentence 
is true and orthodox. Secondly, he says, that it 1s not all unwrit- 
ten doctrine, but any third scripture pretending to be divine, when 
it is really human, that is here condemned. I answer: The words 
are plain. He not only rejects any third scripture, but distinctly 


[* Non igitur omnia que Dominus fecit conscripta sunt, sed que scri- 
bentes tam ad mores quam ad dogmata putarunt sufficere; ut recta fide et 
operibus ac virtute rutilantes ad regnum coelorum perveniamus.—Col. 220. 
Paris. 1508.] 

[5 Ego (prout sensus mei capacitas habet) in hoc biduo puto duo testa- 
menta posse intelligi, in quibus liceat omne verbum, quod ad Deum per- 
tineat (hoc enim est sacrificium), requiri et discuti, atque ex ipsis omnem 
rerum scientiam capi: si quid autem superfuerit, quod non scriptura 
divina decernat, nullam aliam debere tertiam scripturam ad auctoritatem 
scienti» suscipi, que hie dies tertia nominatur, sed igni tradamus quod 
superest, id est, Deo reservemus.—This passage is taken almost word for 
word from Origen, Hom. 5. in Levitic. 66. D. ] 


688 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


affirms that in the two Testaments “every word pertaining to 
God may be sought." Therefore, those things which cannot be 
found in these two Testaments, do in no way pertain to God. 
To whom then shall we suppose that written traditions pertain ? 

Our ninth testimony is that of TazopHitus ALEXANDRINUS, who 
in his 2nd Paschal writes thus: “It is the fruit of a diabolie spirit to 
think that there is aught divine without the authority of the sacred 
scriptures'." Bellarmine says that he is speaking of apocryphal 
books, which some sought to introduce. I answer: The words are 
plain,—that nothing is divine without the scriptures. Now, tradi- 
tions are without the scriptures: therefore, they are not divine. 

Our tenth testimony is that of ApoLLIiNARIs, mentioned by 
Eusebius, Lib. v. e. 15. He says that he had deferred for a long 
time writing against Montanus, lest he should seem to add some- 
thing to the word of the gospel?. Bellarmine replies, firstly, that 
these words are not found in all the books. I answer: They are 
found in the Greek copies, c. 16; in the versions of Christopherson 
and Museulus, e. 15; and the books which have them not are 
faulty. Secondly, Bellarmine remarks that he does not say, to 
the written word of the gospel of God, but simply, to the word of 
the gospel of God. I answer: But he means the written word, as 
is plain from his expressions. For he says that he feared lest he 
should seem emu v^y*ypadQew, or éziciaTacc eo at TQ THS Kans 
ScaOnxns Aoyw* that is, to add anything to the written gospel. 
Besides, he could not possibly fear adding anything by writing to 
an unwritten teaching, but only to written books. Thirdly, Bellar- 
mine says that he means any dogma contrary to scripture,—that 
he was careful not to write anything repugnant thereto. I answer: 
He might easily have guarded against the danger of writing any- 
thing contrary to scripture; but what he dreaded was, lest any one 
should suppose that the book which he wrote added anything to 
the canon, in the same way as Montanus added many things. Then 
he subjoins: * No one can neither add to, or diminish from, the 
scriptures of the old and new Testaments," uj Te s poo ÜOetvai UTE 
adeXeiv dvvatov. Therefore it is certain that the doctrine de- 
livered in the scriptures is perfect. 


(1 Diabolici spiritus est, extra scripturarum sacrarum authoritatem divi- 
num aliquid putare.—In Bibliothec. Patrum. Paris. 1589. T. rrr. col. 519.] 

[2 Sedids S€ kai eEevrdaBoripevos pn mn Oófo tTiow emiovyypapew 7 emdia- 
rácceaÓa. TH Tis ToU evayyeAlov kawiíje SiaOnKns Aéyo, à prre mpoa6eivat prr. 
adereivy Óvvaróy.—T. 11. pp. 73, 74. ed. Heinich.] 


XVII. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 689 


Our eleventh testimony is that of TERTULLIAN (for I come now 
to the Latin fathers) in his books against the heretic Hermogenes, 
where these words occur: **I adore the fulness of scripture, which 
shews me at once the Creator and the creatures, But in the gospel 
I find still further, the Word, who is the minister and mediator of 
the supreme governor. But that all things were made out of any 
subject-matter, I have nowhere yet been able to read. Let the shop 
of Hermogenes teach us where this is written, or fear that woe 
which is destined for those who add to or diminish from the scrip- 
ture?" In these words there are two things to be considered: 
the first is, that the scripture is full and perfect, which appears 
from the words, *I adore the plenitude of scripture;” the other, 
that whoever add or deliver anything that is not written, have to 
dread that woe which is denounced, Rev. xxi. 18. He would not 
have those only to fear it, who bring forward anything contrary to 
scripture, but those also who bring forward anything that is not 
written. Bellarmine says that Tertullian is only speaking of a 
single dogma, namely, that God made all things out of nothing, 
without any pre-existent matter. The scripture, says he, is perfect 
enough to prove this. I answer: Tertullian does indeed handle 
that question in this book; but these words are general and refer 
to all religious questions; nor apply merely to this alone, but to all 
others. Indeed he would have said nothing, unless what he said 
should apply to all questions: for Hermogenes might have objected 
to him that we need not in every question recur to scripture; and 
to what end should he have admonished the heretic to fear that woe 
denounced against all who add or diminish, unless he could shew 
that what he said was written, unless he himself had taken it for 
granted that all was written? Tertullian disputes from the autho- 
rity of scripture negatively. Hermogenes cannot shew that this is 
written; therefore let him fear that woe: which argument would 
have no force at all in it, unless it were certain that the scriptures 
are absolutely full and perfect, and that no dogma should be 
received which is not delivered in the scriptures. 

The same author also elsewhere, in his Prescriptions against 


[3 Adoro scripture plenitudinem, que mihi factorem manifestat et facta. 
In evangelio vero amplius et ministrum atque arbitrum rectoris invenio Ser- 
monem. An autem de aliqua subjacenti materia facta sint omnia, nusquam 
adhue legi. Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina, aut timeat vce illud 
adjicientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum.—cap. 22, p. 19. ed Leopold. 
Lips. 1841.] 


[ WHITAKER.] kis 


690 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


heretics, writes thus: * We are not permitted to indulge our own 
caprice in anything, nor to choose what any shall introduce of his own 
will. We have as our authorities the apostles of the Lord, who them- 
selves chose not anything to be introduced at their own pleasure, 
but faithfully consigned to all nations that instruction which they 
received from Christ. Consequently, though even an angel from 
heaven should preach unto us any other gospel, we should pronounce 
him accursed!." The apostles delivered the instruction of Christ 
faithfully to the nations, not to a few particular persons, but to all. 
And a little after he says, that “all the Lord’s sayings are set forth 
for all?" Therefore not some for some, (as the Jesuit pretends) but 
all for all. The same father, in his book de Resurrectione Carnis, 
calls the heretics shunners of the light of scripture, lucifugas 
scripturarum. This title suits our papists most aptly: for they 
hate the light of scripture, and, whether writing or disputing, seek 
to take us off from the scriptures to the fathers, or tradition, or 
some other testimony. And in the same book he says: “Take 
away from the heretics what they have in common with pagan wis- 
dom, so as to make them support all their opinions by scripture 
only, and they cannot stand?." The same may be said of the 
papists: for if they are compelled to support all their dogmas by 
the scriptures, it is all over with tradition and the whole of popery. 
Thus Tertullian, as long as he was a catholic, everywhere asserts 
the perfection and authority of the scriptures. In his book, de 
Carne Christi, he says: “If they do not prove it, for indeed it is 
not written‘.” And presently after: ‘“‘ But there is nothing cer- 
tainly known, because scripture exhibits nothing*." And again: 
* Ido not admit what you add beside the scripture out of your 
own head." 

Our twelfth testimony is that of Cyprian, Ep. 74 ad Pompeium, 


(1 Nobis vero nihil ex nostro arbitrio indulgere licet, sed nec eligere quod 
aliquis de arbitrio suo induxerit. Apostolos Domini habemus auctores, qui 
nec ipsi quiequam ex suo arbitrio, quod inducerent, elegerunt, sed accep- 
tam a Christo disciplinam fideliter nationibus adsignaverunt. Itaque etiam 
si angelus de ccelis aliter evangelizaret, anathema diceretur a nobis.—c. 6, 
p. 4.] 

[2 Omnia quidem dicta Domini omnibus posita sunt.—-c. 8, p. 7.] 

[3 Aufer hzreticis quz cum ethnicis sapiunt, ut de solis scripturis ques- 
tiones suas sistant, et stare non possunt.—-c. 3.] 

[4 Si non probant, quia nec scriptum est.—c. 6, p. 69.] 

[5 Certum est; sed nihil de eo constat, quia scriptura non exhibet.—Ibid. ] 

[$ Non recipio, quod extra scripturam de tuo infers.—c. 7, p. 70.] 


XVII. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 691 


against Stephen, concerning the rebaptization of those who returned 
to the church from heresy. In that epistle he writes thus: 
** Whence is that tradition ? Descends it from the authority of the 
Lord and the gospel, or from the commandments and letters of the 
apostles ? That we should do what is written, is what God testifies, 
proposing this to Joshua the son of Nave, where he says: * The book 
of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt 
meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do all 
the things which are written therein. In like manner the Lord, 
when he sends his apostles, commands that the nations should be 
baptized and taught to observe all things whatsoever he commanded 
them.” Then he subjoins: “If therefore it is either enjoined in 
the gospels, or contained in the apostolic epistles or Acts, that those 
who come from any heresy should not be baptized, but only have 
hands laid upon them in token of repentance, let this divine and 
holy tradition be observed’.” In these words we must observe two 
things: first, that every evangelical and apostolic tradition should 
be sought in the Gospels, Acts, or Epistles; secondly, that all 
things which cannot be found in these books should be rejected and 
despised. Bellarmine replies, in the jirst place, that Cyprian, when 
he wrote this epistle, was in error, and defended that error; and 
that consequently he reasoned as men in error do. I answer: He 
erred indeed, but he advanced a good argument to support a bad 
cause: he was wrong in the minor, not in the major premiss. 
For thus he reasoned: Things unwritten should not be received. 
So far was true. Then he assumed that what Stephen held,— 
namely, that those baptized by heretics should not be rebaptized,— 
was not written. Now this was false: so that it was a good 
argument applied to a bad cause. Secondly, Bellarmine says, 
that Augustine refutes this epistle, de Baptismo c. Donat. Lib. v. 
c. 28. I answer: He does refute it, and censures it, not on account 
of this opinion, but on account of the drift of the epistle, because 


[7 Unde est ista traditio? Utrumne de dominiea et evangelica aucto- 
ritate descendens, an de apostolorum mandatis atque epistolis veniens? Ea 
enim facienda esse que scripta sunt, Deus testatur, et proponit ad Jesum 
Nave, dicens, Non recedet liber legis hujus ex ore tuo, sed meditaberis in eo 
die ac nocte, ut observes facere omnia que scripta sunt in eo. Item Do- 
minus apostolos suos mittens mandat baptizari gentes et doceri, ut observent 
omnia quecunque ille precepit. Si ergo aut in evangelio preecipitur, aut in 
apostolorum epistolis aut actibus continetur, ut a quacunque h:resi veni- 
entes non baptizentur, sed tantum manus illis imponatur in poenitentiam, ob- 
servetur divina heec et sancta traditio.—p. 211, ed. Fell.] 


44—2 


692 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


Cyprian therein contends that those who were baptized by heretics 
should be rebaptized. Yea, Augustine approves and praises this 
opinion of Cyprian's: for in this same book, c. 26, he says, ** This 
is excellent which Cyprian hath said, * Let us return to the fountain- 
head." If Cyprian had done what he himself says ought to have 
been done, that is, had entirely betaken himself to the tradition of 
canonical scripture, he would never have persisted in this opinion, 
or have contended for the repetition of a baptism performed by 
ever so gross a heretic.  Dellarmine's argument therefore is a 
sophism—a non causa ad causam. His third reply is to this 
effect: Although Cyprian condemns this tradition, yet he condemns 
not other traditions. I answer: Cyprian condemns not merely one, 
but all traditions which cannot be established by the scriptures of 
the evangelists and apostles. And in Ep. 68 ad Cecilium, he says 
that “Christ only should be heard," and none beside; that we 
should do what he did and commanded to be done: where he 
refers us to the voice of Christ, and that consigned in writing. And 
in the same epistle he says that we should take care, that when 
Christ comes “he may find us holding what he admonished us of, 
observing what he taught, doing what he did." And a little before 
he says that we should follow the tradition of the Lord. Now he 
means no other tradition than the scripture, as in the epistle 
to Pompeius. Therefore, if we would keep the tradition of the 
Lord, we must always return to the scriptures alone. 

I come now to Jerome and Augustine, who alone remain of 
those enumerated by Bellarmine. Our thirteenth testimony, then, 
is that of JERomE, Comment. in Tit. i.; Comment. in Matth. xxiii. ; 
in Aggsum; in Psalm. Ixxxvi.; and elsewhere. Those which we 
have enumerated are the only testimonies of Jerome to which 
Bellarmine replies. In the first of them Jerome says: ‘“ Gar- 
rulity unsupported by the authority of scripture hath no credit." 
Bellarmine says that this fits us exactly; meaning that garrulous 
men obtain no credit with any, unless they seek to confirm their 
errors by scripture. I answer: But in these words traditions 
are plainly set aside, and those are pronounced mere talkers, who 
maintain anything without authority of scripture; which even 
Bellarmine’s own interpretation of the passage proves. Would 
heretics seem mere talkers, when they teach anything without 
scriptural proof, and gain credit with nobody, unless every doc- 
trine required to be confirmed by the authority of scripture ? 


[! Sine auctoritate scripturarum garrulitas fidem non habet. ] 


XVI. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 693 


The second place from Jerome is contained in his Commentary 
on Matth. xxii.: “That which hath no authority from scripture 
is as easily rejected as approved?" He speaks of Zacharias who 
was slain between the temple and the altar, and whom some made 
the father of John the Baptist on the authority of tradition. Bel- 
larmine replies that he speaks of a particular tradition taken 
from some apocryphal book. I answer: Yet he speaks gene- 
rally, that all those things may be easily rejected, which rest not 
upon scripture. For what, if that tradition was written in an 
apocryphal book, does it therefore follow that it ought to be 
rejected? As if any popish traditions were contained in canonical 
books ! 

Jerome’s third testimony is found in his Commentary on Hag- 
gai 1. The words are these: “ And other things also, which they 
find or invent out of their own heads, as if it were an apostolic 
tradition, without the authority and testimony of scripture, the sword 
of God strikes through*.” By the sword of God he means the 
scriptures. Bellarmine replies, that he is dealing with those who 
devise something out of their own heads, and would have it thought 
apostolical. The same reply is given by Harding in his book against 
the English Apology. I answer: This testimony pinches and op- 
poses the papists mightily; for they have invented many things 
which cannot be established by the authority of scripture, and which 
nevertheless they desire should be esteemed apostolical. And, to 
make Jerome’s meaning still plainer, he subjoins, that all their 
labours, and fastings, and various observances, and lyings on the 
ground (yapevvias) are here condemned. ‘These things are not 
plainly contrary to scripture, and yet he says that these are 
stricken by the sword of God! Now the papists use all these, and 
make a great part of piety and religion consist in them. It is mani- 
fest therefore that Jerome condemns all things which cannot be 
proved by plain testimonies of scripture. 

The other passage of Jerome is upon Ps. Ixxxvi.; although 
Erasmus and others suppose that those commentaries on the Psalms 
are not Jerome’s, but of some other writer. However, Bellarmine 
does not avail himself of that exception, or deny the authority of 


[2 Hoe quia de scripturis non habet auctoritatem, eadem facilitate con- 
temnitur, qua probatur.—T. 1x. p. 57. Francof. 1684. ] 

[3 Sed et alia, quee absque auctoritate et testimoniis scripturarum quasi 
traditione apostoliea sponte reperiunt atque confingunt, percutit gladius 
Dei.—T. vr. p. 184.] 


694 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


this piece. Thus then writes Jerome in that place: ‘Mark what he 
says: ‘Those who were, not those who are: so as that, with the 
exception of the apostles, whatever else may be said afterwards, is 
eut off and deprived of authority. Although therefore a man be 
holy after the apostles, although he be eloquent, he hath no autho- 
rity, because, *The Lord relates in the scripture of the people, and 
of those princes who were in her!.” Bellarmine replies, that those 
things are rejected which are contrary and repugnant to the scrip- 
tures, and nothing else. I answer: The words of the psalm which 
Jerome treats of are these: ** The Lord shall relate in the scripture 
of the people and of those princes who were in her." But how, 
says Jerome, will he relate? Not by word of mouth, but in 
scripture. Therefore every unwritten word must be amputated and 
cut off. But Bellarmine hath omitted these words, because they 
make against himself. But, says Jerome, why is scripture called 
the scripture of the people? Because it is read by all people, that 
all may understand it. Why of the princes ? Because the apostles 
and evangelists, the princes of the church, wrote these things. 
And he says, “They were,” not they are, to shew that nothing 
can now be added. 

I come now to AucUsTINE, from whom our divines allege many 
testimonies. De Doctr. Christ. Lib. rn. e. 9, he writes thus: 
* Amongst those things which are plainly set down in scripture 
are found all those which contain faith and manners, that is, hope 
and charity?" Bellarmine replies, that Augustine speaks of those 
things which are simply necessary to all I answer: We have 
already discussed this. Indeed it is a mere and a miserable subter- 
fuge; for Augustine speaks of those doctrines which are necessary 
not only for all, but for every one. He says, in the beginning of 
this very chapter: *In all these books those who fear God, and 


[1 Videte quid dicat: Qui fuerunt, non qui sunt: ut, exceptis apostolis, 
quodcunque aliud postea dicetur, abscindatur, non habeat postea auctorita- 
tem. Quamvis ergo sanctus sit aliquis post apostolos, quamvis disertus sit, 
non habet auctoritatem : quoniam Dominus narrat in scriptura populorum 
et principum horum, qui fuerunt in ea.—T. vri. p. 163. 

The quotation is from Ps. lxxxvii. 6, according to the Vulgate, follow- 
ing the Seventy: Kéópios Oupyjoera: év ypahy Aady kai àpxóvrev rovrov TaY 
yeyevnuévay év aor). They seem to have brought up D" from v. 7, and 


to have read it QQu.] 
[? In iis enim que aperte in scripturis posita sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia que 
continent fidem moresque vivendi, spem scilicet atque caritatem.—T. 11. p. 12.] 


XVII. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 695 


are endued with the meekness of piety, seek the will of God*.” 
And, to enable us the better to seek the will of God, he delivers 
two rules: the first is, to know, read, and even commit to me- 
mory the canonical books; the second, to investigate those things 
which are plainly expressed in them. Then he subjoins these 
words: “For amongst those things which are plainly set down in 
scripture are found all those which contain faith and manners, that 
is, hope and charity.” However, it is no despicable concession on 
Bellarmine’s part, that he confesses all dogmas simply necessary 
for all to be contained in scripture: from which we may gather, 
that no traditions are simply necessary for all persons. But Au- 
gustine plainly concedes, that whatever things simply contain faith 
and morals, are perspicuously delivered in the scriptures. Now, 
how impious and repugnant to sound theology is it to maintain that 
some things are simply necessary to all for salvation, and some not 
to all! As if the faith of prelates were one thing, and the faith 
of the people another! To the same effect is what Augustine, de 
peccat. Merit. et Remiss. Lib. u. c. ult.: “I believe that upon this 
subject also the authority of the divine oracles would be abundantly 
clear, if a man could not be ignorant of it without the loss of the 
promised salvation* Where he affirms that those things, whereof 
we cannot be ignorant without the loss of our salvation, are plainly 
found in scripture. He is speaking of a very difficult question, 
how we can prove that God is not the author of the guilt of sin, if 
the soul be not ex traduce. From this place of Augustine I draw 
two inferences: one, that in every obscure question between us 
and the papists, or any other adversaries who discourse upon 
religion, we should suspend our assent unless the point be esta- 
blished by certain and clear testimonies of scripture; (for so says 
Augustine in the words immediately preceding: ‘‘ Where the dis- 
pute is about a matter of great obscurity, and clear and certain 
instruction is not lent us by the holy scriptures, human presumption 
should restrain itself and lie still, inclining to neither side5:" hence 


[3 In his omnibus libris timentes Deum et pietate mansueti querunt 
voluntatem Dei.] 

[* Illud tamen eredo, quod etiam hine divinorum eloquiorum clarissima 
auctoritas esset, si homo illud sine dispendio promisse salutis ignorare non 
posset.—T. vir. p. 304. | 

[5 Ubi de re obscurissima disputatur, non adjuvantibus divinarum scrip- 
turarum claris certisque documentis, cohibere se debet humana preesumptio, 
nihil faciens, in partem alteram declinando.— Ibid. | 


696 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ox. 


it follows as a corollary, that all things must be proved by scrip- 
ture:) the other, that there are plain testimonies in scripture to all 
those things which we cannot be ignorant of without peril of our 
salvation. Farewell then traditions, as things no way necessary to 
salvation! Another passage of Augustine is, contra Lit. Petil. Lib. 
rr. c. 6, where he writes thus: ** Therefore, if there be a question 
concerning Christ, or his church, or any other matter appertaining 
to our faith or practice, I say not if we—who are by no means 
comparable to him who said, ‘Though we,’—but I do say certainly 
what he goes on to subjoin—* or an angel from heaven, preach any 
thing to you beside what ye have received in the scriptures of the 
law and the gospel, let him be accursed’!.” Bellarmine replies: 
*[ have shewn already that the word beside is equivalent to op- 
posed to.” I answer: And I have shewn already, that all dogmas 
which rest not on the scriptures of the law and the gospel are here 
condemned. 

Our divines produce besides other testimonies from Augustine, 
as Civit. Dei. Lib. xix. c. 18, where he writes thus: *'The city 
of God believes also in the holy scriptures, as well the old as 
the new, which we style canonical; whence that faith is conceived 
by which the just man lives, by which we walk without doubting 
so long as we sojourn absent from the Lord, and which faith 
remaining safe and certain, we may doubt, without incurring just 
censure, about some things which we perceive neither by sense 
nor reason, which are not revealed to us by the canonical scrip- 
tures, nor have come to our knowledge upon the testimony of 
witnesses whose credit it would be absurd to question?" They 
produce, moreover, many more testimonies, as from Tract. 2. in Ep. 
Joann., Epist. 163, de Pastor. c. 14, de Confess. Lib. vr. c. 5. 
To all these testimonies Dellarmine replies, that nothing is therein 


[! Proinde sive de Christo, sive de ejus ecclesia, sive de quacunque alia 
re qus pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram, non dicam si nos, nequaquam 
comparandi ei qui dixit, Licet si nos, sed omnino quod sequutus adjecit, si 
Angelus de ccelo vobis annunciaverit preeterquam quod in scripturis legalibus 
et evangelicis accepistis, anathema sit.—T. Ix. p. 301.] 

(2 Credit etiam scripturis sanctis, et veteribus et novis, quas canonicas 
appellamus, unde fides ipsa concepta est, ex qua justus vivit, per quam sine 
dubitatione ambulamus, quamdiu peregrinamur a Domino, qua salva atque 
certa de quibusdam rebus, quas neque sensu neque ratione percipimus, 
neque nobis per canonicam scripturam claruerunt, nec per testes quibus non 
credere absurdum est, in nostram notitiam pervenerunt, sine justa repre- 
hensione dubitamus.] 


xvi. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 697 


said against traditions; but that Augustine merely affirms, that 
where scriptural evidences can be had for the confirmation of doc- 
trines, we should use them rather than others. Surely a noble 
answer! The scriptures are to be produced when they can be 
produced! It is indeed thus that the papists act in defence of 
their cause. When they have scripture (which seldom happens), 
they produce it. But what must be done when the testimony of 
scripture cannot be produced? Why, forsooth, according to this 
reply, we need not feel much more care or solicitude what testi- 
monies we use. But Augustine desires that in every case testi- 
monies should be adduced from scripture, as appears plainly from 
the passages themselves, which we shall set forth every one, to 
manifest the futility and falsehood of this reply. 

In the first, that taken from the City of God, Lib. xix. c. 18, 
he says that the church of God believes in the books of the old and 
new Testaments, “by which that faith whereby the just man lives 
is engendered.” They therefore seek some new faith, who seek 
anything beside the scripture, forasmuch as this is the faith which 
all Christians hold who are Christians in reality as well as in 
profession, 

In the second testimony, taken from the second Tractate on 
the Epistles of John, he says, that ** God designed to lay a foun- 
dation against insidious errors in the scriptures, against which no 
man dares to speak who desires to seem a Christian in any sense.” 
The end of scripture, therefore, is to defend us against errors. 

In the third testimony, taken from Epist. 163, he says that 
the canonical books ought to be beside us, “from which, in prefer- 
ence to all others, if any evidence can be alleged on either side, 
the matter may be examined to the end.” 

In his book de Pastoribus, c. 14, (from which the fourth tes- 
timony is taken), he writes thus: “Read me this from the prophets, 
or from the Psalms; quote it from the law, quote it from the gos- 
pel, quote it from an apostle. From these sources I can quote the 
fact of the church diffused over the whole world, and the Lord 
saying, ‘My sheep hear my voice, and follow me’*.” And a little 
after he says: “Away with human writings! let us hear God’s 
words.” That divine voice, then, which the sheep of Christ hear, 


(? Lege hoe mihi de propheta, lege de Psalmo, recita de lege, recita de 
evangelio, recita de apostolo. Inde ego recito ecclesiam toto orbe diffusam, 
et Dominum dicentem, Qus sunt oves mes vocem meam audiunt et 
sequuntur me... Àuferantur chartze humane; sonent voces divinee.—T. 1x.]} 


698 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn. 


sounds in the scriptures, and unwritten traditions deserve no esteem 
from his flock. 

In his Confessions, Lib. vr. c. 5, he says, that he was drawn 
away from the Manichees by this conviction, amongst others, that 
he had begun to believe that God would never have given the 
scripture so eminent an authority throughout all lands, unless he 
had meant it to be the means whereby we should believe in him, 
and seek him. 

Another passage of Augustine cited by Bellarmine is from his 
book de bono Viduitatis, c. 1, and is as follows: ‘The holy 
scripture hath fixed the rule of our doctrine, that we may not 
presume to be wise beyond what is meet, but may be wise (as 
the apostle says) unto sobriety, according as God hath dealt to 
every man the measure of faith. Let me not then consider that 
in teaching you I am doing anything more than expounding the 
great Teacher's words, and discoursing of what he hath given!." 
Bellarmine maintains that Augustine speaks only of one single 
dogma, —namely, that of the profession of widowhood. I answer: 
Augustine's expressions are general, laying down that holy serip- 
ture fixes for us the rule of doctrine in reference to all sound 
dogmas. He says not that it hath fixed the rule of this or that 
dogma, but of our doctrine, lest we presume to be wise above 
what is meet. This, says Bellarmine, is spoken against those who 
feign anything out of their own heads. But Augustine says that 
the rule of doctrine is fixed in scripture: therefore, if we teach 
anything that is not laid down in scripture, whether of our own 
invention or otherwise, it is foreign from the rule of doctrine. 

Another passage of Augustine is contained in his treatise C. 
Max. Arian. Lib. rr. c. 14. The words are these: ‘Neither should 
I allege the council of Nice, nor you that of Rimini, as if we would 
prejudge the question. You are not bound by the authority of the 
one, nor I by that of the other. With authorities from the scrip- 
tures, evidence not peculiar to either but common to both, let us 
compare matter with matter, cause with cause, reason with reason*." 


[! Sancta scriptura nostre doctrine regulam figit, ne audeamus sapere 
plus quam oportet sapere, sed sapiamus, (ut ipse ait) ad temperantiam, sicut 
unicuique Deus partitus est mensuram fidei. Non sit ergo mihi aliud te 
docere, nisi verba tibi Doctoris exponere, et de iis, quod Dominus dederit, 
disputare.] 

[2 Sed nunc nec ego Nicenum, nec tu debes Ariminense, tanquam pre- 
judicaturus proferre concilium. Nec ego hujus auctoritate, nec tu illius 


XVII. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 699 


Bellarmine replies, that these words may seem to make something 
against the authority of councils, but not against traditions. I an- 
swer: When Augustine appeals from councils to the scriptures, he 
certainly much more rejects traditions; because the authority of 
councils ranks next after that of scripture. And if (as the papists 
pretend) traditions have an equal authority with scripture, then 
Augustine would have mentioned them, and said, “ with authorities 
from scripture and tradition.” For so Augustine frequently rejects 
all other standards, and requires scripture to be produced. In 
his commentary on Psalm lvii. Augustine writes thus: “ Away with 
our writings! Let the Book of God come forth: hear Christ 
teaching : hear Truth speaking *”—-where he counts everything 
but scripture to be the voice of man. There are similar expres- 
sions in his book de Unitate Ecclesie, capp. 3, 6, 10, 16, 20; and 
another passage, de Merit. et Remiss. Pecc. Lib. n. c. ult. which 
hath been already cited. These are the testimonies, the force of 
which our opponent seeks to elude. 

We might easily produce many more, as well from Augustine as 
from others; and therefore Bellarmine's first remark is of no weight 
against us: for he says, in the first place, that he hath cited twice 
as many testimonies for traditions as we bring against them. I 
answer: Firstly, the victory rests not with the multitude and num- 
ber, but with the truth of testimonies. We read that a thousand 
men have been often routed by a hundred. Secondly, I say that 
we also could bring twice as many testimonies as he hath produced. 
In the second. place, Dellarmine observes that the testimonies on their 
side expressly teach that traditions ought to be received; while ours 
do not teach that they should be rejected expressly, but only by 
wrong consequences which we draw from them. I answer: I con- 
fess that the fathers often mention traditions, but these four things 
are to be noted in their testimonies: first, that the name of tradi- 
tion sometimes denotes written doctrine, and some article depending 
on the sure testimony of scripture: secondly, that those traditions 
mentioned by the fathers are generally free customs, and not neces- 
sary dogmas: thirdly, that the fathers themselves were often 
deceived: (this, perhaps, may seem reproachful to the fathers; but 


detineris: scripturarum auctoritatibus, non quorumque propriis, sed utrisque 
communibus testibus, res cum re, causa cum causa, ratio cum ratione con- 
certet.—T. vi. p. 306.] 

(3 Auferantur de medio charte; nostre; procedat in medium codex Dei; 
audi Christum docentem, audi veritatem loquentem. ] 


700 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ cn. 


the matter of fact is manifest, inasmuch as they differ among them- 
selves:) fourthly, that many of the traditions mentioned by the 
fathers are now abrogated by the papists themselves. Some of 
these four observations will suffice to obviate every one of the testi- 
monies from the fathers. Finally, Bellarmine remarks, that we 
concede that tradition is defended by the fathers, while they do not 
concede that it was opposed by them. I answer: We concede that 
traditions were defended by the fathers, but in the sense already 
explained : and his assertion, that the fathers do not oppose tradi- 
tions, is false; for they who say that the scriptures are perfect 
and sufficient, and that all religious doctrines should be drawn from 
the scriptures, do really reject traditions. 

However, since he taunts us with the paucity of testimonies, I 
am disposed to proceed a little further, and accumulate additional 
evidence. Origen, in Rom. xvi. |. 10, writes thus: “ Behold, how 
those men stand upon the brink of peril, who neglect to exercise 
themselves in holy scripture, from which alone"— so he proceeds— 
* the discernment of this examination can be learned!" ^ Chryso- 
stom, Hom. 58, on the beginning of John x. writes thus: * He 
justly calls the scriptures the door, because they lead us to God, 
and disclose to us the knowledge of him. They make us his sheep, 
they guard us, and permit not the irruption of the wolves. For, 
like a gate of exceeding strength, they repel hereties, place us in 
safety, and suffer us not to wander as we please." Then he sub- 
joins: * He who does not use the holy scripture, but climbeth up 
some other way, the same is a thief?" Surely, there is a noble 
encomium upon scripture in this passage. He says that it is the 
door of the knowledge of God; that it makes us of the flock and 
keeps us so; that we are directed by it so as not to fall into error; 
that it protects us from heretics and repels them; lastly, that those 
who climb up some other way,—that is, who use any other 


[! Vide quam proximi periculis fiant hi, qui exerceri in divinis literis 
negligunt, ex quibus solis hujusmodi examinationis agnoscenda discretio 
est.—Origen. Opp. P. rr. p. 412, c. Paris. 1604.] 

» 7 M , M ^ 9, 3 7 A eu ^ , ^ 

[2 eikóros 0€ Ovpay tas ypadas ékdXeoev. atrat yàp nuas mpoodyovot TO 
OcQ kal tHyv Ócoyvocíav avolyovow: attrac mpdBatra roodew* atra. vAárrovow, 

* M , > > ^ > ^ , , , > * e) 
kal Tovs Avkovs ovk adiaow émewgeAÜeiv: kaÜdámep yap tis Üvpa aadadis, ovros 
dmokAeiet Tois aiperikois THY elaodov, év aodadeia kaÜiaTOca nuas wept ov av 
BovAdpeÜa máüvrov, kai ovk éóca TwAavacba..... 6 yap ur Tals ypadpais xpo- 
pevos, GAAa avaBaivwv addadxobev, tovtéctw, érépav éavrQ Kal put) vevopuopée- 
yy Tépvav ó00v, oóros Kdémtns écTív.—Chrysostom. Comment. 'T. 1r. p. 371. 
Paris. 1633.] 


Xvit. | QUESTION THE SIXTH, 701 


evidence—are thieves. What then, I beseech you, are the 
papists ? The same father, Hom. 9. on the Colossians, says: ‘ Wait 
not for another master. Thou hast the oracles of God, None can 
teach thee like them." And, a little after: ‘Ignorance of scrip- 
ture is the source of all evils’? Where then are those who refuse 
to be satisfied with scripture, when Chrysostom bids us expect no 
other master ? whereby he indicates pretty plainly, that all neces- 
. sary things are found in scripture. Jerome, at the end of his 
epistle to Ctesiphon, writes thus: “I have not time at present to 
write about the rest, and it was a letter you asked of me and not a 
book; which must be dictated at leisure, and wherein all the calum- 
nies of these men shall be, with Christ’s help, refuted: and this 
cause must be asserted by the testimonies of holy scripture, 
wherein God speaks daily to believers*.” From which words I 
gather two conclusions: first, that all things which any doctor 
asserts must be brought to the test of scripture; secondly, that 
God speaks still in the scriptures. The same father, in his com- 
mentary on Micah i., says, that the church hath “the cities of the 
law, of the prophets, of the gospel, and of the apostles, and hath 
not gone beyond its boundaries, which are the holy scriptures.” 
Here he writes expressly, that the church is circumscribed by the 
bounds of scripture, and not permitted to transgress them. 
Ambrose, Comment. in Luc. xvi., explaining the words of the 
woman of Canaan to Christ, ** Truth, Lord; yet the dogs eat of the 
crumbs that fall from their masters’ table," writes thus: ** These are 
crumbs of that bread; and since that bread is the word, and faith 
is exercised upon the word, the doctrines of faith are as it were 
crumbs5," Now, lest any one should explain this of the unwritten 
word, Aquinas, in his Catena Aurea, upon these words, adopting 
the very same allegory, says that the table figuratively denotes 
the holy scripture, and the crumbs the least precepts or internal 


[3 pndé mepipeivys erepov SiddoKxadov: exes Ta Aóyia TOU Ceod: ovdeis ce 
diSdoKer ws ékeiva....ToÜrOo TdvT@y airiov TOV kakdv, TO pH €id€var Tas ypa- 
gas.—T. vi. p. 224.] 

[4^ De ceteris non est hujus temporis scribere; neque enim a me librum 
sed epistolam flagitasti, qui dictandus est ex otio, et omnes oblatrationes 
eorum Christi auxilio destruende, quod nobis sanctarum scripturarum testi- 
moniis asserendum est, in quibus quotidie credentibus loquitur Deus.— 
Hieron. Opp. T. 1. coll. 1035, 6. Veronze. 1734.] 

[5 Mies iste de illo pane sunt, et quia panis verbum est, et fides verbi 
est, micee velut queedam dogmata fidei sunt.—Exposit. in Luc. Lib. vim. $. 
15. T. v. p. 351. Paris. 1838.] 


702 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cu. 


mysteries, on which the holy church feeds; and that the dogs are 
the faithful. The sense therefore is, that the faithful are fed by 
the precepts of faith, but only such as fall from the table of the 
Lord, that is, are taken from the holy scriptures. Consequently, 
the faithful feed only on those doctrines which are delivered in the 
word of God, that is, in scripture. The same Ambrose, De Fide, 
ad Gratian. Lib. 1. c. 6, writes as follows: “I would not have 
your sacred majesty trust mere argument, or any reasoning of 
mine. Let us ask the scriptures, let us ask the apostles, let us 
ask the prophets, let us ask Christ!." 

Augustine, Epist. 112, writes thus: * If it be confirmed by the 
clear authority of the scriptures of God, (those, I mean, which are 
called canonical in the church,) it should be believed without any 
doubt. But you may repose greater or less faith in all other wit- 
nesses or testimonies, which are urged as persuasions to belief, in 
proportion as we find them to have or to want the weight which 
is proper to produce belief?.” Thus Augustine: In which words he 
teaches us that the authority of scripture is singular in its kind, so 
as that whatever is by it confirmed must be immediately received ; 
but that all other witnesses and testimonies are destitute of such an 
authority, requiring to be examined, and to have just so much credit 
assigned to them as we find upon examination to be their due. 
Absolutely false, then, is the assertion of our adversaries, that 
the authority of scripture and tradition is the same; since we must 
believe scripture without any hesitation, while all other testimonies, 
of what kind soever, must be diligently weighed and examined. 
The same author elsewhere, De Natura et Gratia, c. 91, writes 
thus: ‘I owe an absolute assent only to the canonical scriptures?." 
What value, may Iask, did this father set upon traditions, when he 
declared that he owed an absolute assent to nothing but the canoni- 
cal scriptures ? 

Vincentius Lirinensis, an ancient author in whose book the 
papists have great confidence, speaks thus: c. 41, * The canon 


{1 Sed nolo argumento credas, sancte imperator, et nostre disputationi: 
scripturas interrogemus, interrogemus apostolos, interrogemus prophetas, 
interrogemus Christum.—T. vr. pp. 15, 16.] 

(2 Si divinarum scripturarum, earum scilicet que canonice in ecclesia 
nominantur, perspicua firmatur auctoritate, sine ulla dubitatione credendum 
est. Aliis vero testibus vel testimoniis, quibus aliquid credendum esse sua- 
detur, tibi credere vel non credere liceat, quantum ea momenti ad faciendam 
fidem vel habere vel non habere perpenderis.—Paris. 1635.] 

(3 Quia solis canonicis debeo sine recusatione consensum.—-T. vir. p. 322.] 


XVII. | QUESTION THE SIXTH. 703 


of scripture alone is self-sufficient for all&" Still more plainly, 
c. 2: “The canon of scripture alone is sufficient, and more than suf- 
ficient for all things®.” Ido not see how he could have spoken more 
plainly: he says that the canon of scripture is sufficient, and more 
than sufficient; sufficient for all things, and sufficient alone. Theodo- 
ret, Dialog. 2. c. Heret., speaks thus: ‘I dare not say any thing 
upon which scripture is silent®.” Those, therefore, are presumptuous, 
who say any thing beside the scripture. Damascene, de Fide Ortho- 
doxa, c. 1, writes thus: “ We receive, acknowledge, honour and 
approve all things delivered by the law, the prophets, the apostles, 
and the evangelists ;" then he subjoins, ** seeking nothing else beside 
these’.” The same author, Lib. 1v. c. 18, writes thus: “ Like a 
tree planted by the streams of water, so the soul, irrigated by the 
holy scripture, is enriched, and brings forth seasonable fruit, even 
orthodox faith, and is adorned with foliage ever green, that is, with 
works well pleasing to God. For we become apt for zealous work 
and pure contemplation by the scriptures; since we find in them 
what encourages us to all virtue and turns us from all vice *.” 
Hugo de Sancto Victore, Prol. in Lib. 1. de Sacr, c. 1,9 compares 
Christ to a king who walks, as princes use, between his attendants, 
the sacraments of the old and new Testaments: he says that the 
matter of scripture is works of restoration, and that the works of 
restoration are the incarnation of the Word with all its sacraments. 
Wherein he expressly testifies that all the sacraments are contained 
in scripture, in opposition to the papists who derive some sacra- 
ments from tradition. In the same book, c. 7, he says that the 
sayings of the fathers are not reckoned part of the body of the 
text, and that they add nothing to the scripture, but only explain 


[4 Solus scripturee canon sibi ad universa sufficit. ] 

[5 Solus canon scripture ad omnia satis superque sufficit. ] 

[€ OPOO. "Eyà uév oix ay hainy àvÓpemívow meiÜóuevos Xoywrpots. ov yap 

e EN A [d » , ^ ^ , ^ " 

ovTws cipi Ópag)s wate dava, TL coeovyguévov mapa tH Ocia ypadn.—Theo- 
doret. Dialog. Tiguri. 1593, p. 107.] 

4 , , ^ L4 ewe , , M =~ x3 , 

[7 mavra toivuy rà mapa0e0ouéva nyiv dia re vóuov kal mpodrróv kai aroord- 
Aev xai ebayyewa TOv OexóueÜa kal ywaakouev kai aéBouev, ovdevy mepawrépo 
rovrav eni(nrovvres.—Damascen. Opp. T. 1. p. 123. Paris. 1712.] 

[8 [4 rV, dé b X ^ 8 50 ^ Wye Ld [4 1 

agTep'yàp Sevdpoy mapa tas SueEddovs rv iOárov medvrevuévov, ovro kai 

7 Wuxn, TH Ocia dpOevouévg ypadj muaiverar kai kapmóv piov Sidoct, míiaTw 
ópÉó0o£ov, kai deiÓaXégw rois PvddAos, rais Ücapéarows dpi wpaiterar mpakect. 
—c. 17, p. 282.] 


[? Divina scriptura materiam habet opera restaurationis.—Opp. T. 11. 
Mogunt. 1617.] 


704 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. XVII. 


more clearly, and handle more largely, what is contained in scrip- 
ture. He teaches us, therefore, not to seek in the fathers any 
thing else but what is in scripture, because they only interpret 
scripture, not add to it any thing of their own. Scotus, in 
his Prologue to Lombard, says that ‘Scripture contains suffici- 
ently the doctrine necessary for a Christian in this life!" So 
Thomas, Comment. in 2 Tim. iii., says that the scriptures make the 
man of God perfect. Antoninus, Summa, P. ut. Tit. 18, c. 8: “ The 
suitable matter of preaching is the holy scripture. For God 
speaketh once, says Job, xxii and it is in the sacred scripture 
that God speaks: and that so copiously (as Gregory explains it, 
Moral. 22), as that he needs not say any thing necessary a second 
time, since all things are therein contained?" Driedo, De Catal. 
Lib. 1. c. 1, says that scripture is called an nstrument, because it 
instructs man what he should believe, hope, and do?. 

Thus have we come to the close of this controversy, and sup- 
pose that, in what hath been said, we have sufficiently explained 
that sentence of scripture which we laid down at the commencement 
as our text. Hitherto we have refuted those errors of the papists 
which relate to the prophetic office of Christ. Those follow, in the 
next place, which regard his royal functions. 


[2 Qusestio 1r. p. 40, inter Scoti Opp. T. rrr. p. 1. Lugdun. 1639. Scotus 
proposes the question, Utrum cognitio supernaturalis necessaria viatori sit 
sufficienter tradita in sacra scriptura? and resolves it in the affirmative. ] 

(2 Materia congrua predicationis est sacra scriptura. Semel enim loqui- 
tur Deus (inquit Job. xxii.); loquitur autem Deus in scriptura sacra, et ita 
copiose, ut Gregorius exponit 22 Moral, quod non oportet Deum iterum 
loqui aliquid nobis necessarium, cum ibi omnia habeantur.— Antoninus, 
Summa Summarum, P. rir. Lugdun. 1639.] 

[3 Earundem scripturarum canonem eruditissimi viri instrumentum vo- 
cant, quia illie instruitur quisque pro sua salute, quid credere, quid sperare, 
quid agere debeat.—Dried. Opp. fol. 2. Lovan. 1500.] 


TO THE CHRISTIAN READER. 





Ir ever any heretics have impiously outraged the holy scrip- 
ture of God, we may justly rank the papists of our time with this 
class of men, who pervert things the most sacred. For, not to men- 
tion how insultingly most of them speak, and how meanly they 
think, of the scriptures, and to pass by at present the insane slan- 
ders of certain of them, (because I would not hurt your pious ears 
with the foul speeches these men have uttered,) there are especially 
six opinions concerning scripture which they now hold and obstinately 
defend, that are eminently absurd, heretical, and sacrilegious. 

The first concerns the number of canonical and truly inspired 
books of scripture; since, not content with those which in the old 
Testament were published by the prophets, in the new by the 
apostles and evangelists—the chosen organs of the Spirit, they 
add to this fair and perfect body of canonical scripture, not only 
the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, but even the 
history of the Maccabees, the apocryphal stories of Susanna and 
Bel and the Dragon, and fragments of Esther, than which nothing 
more spurious can be imagined. 

The second is, their placing the authentic scripture in the old 
Latin translation, which they call the Vulgate, and not in the 
sacred Hebrew and Greek originals: which is not merely, as 
Glaucus with Diomede*, to exchange gold for brass, but to prefer 
the work of man to that of God. Who can doubt that Glaucus 
was a wise man compared with these? Brasen arms are as fit for 
all warlike purposes as golden ; but who would not choose to learn 
true religion from the words of the Holy Ghost rather than from 
those of a translator—especially such a translator, and draw the 
water which he drinks from a spring, and not a cistern? Besides, 
in forbidding the people to read the scriptures, and performing 
their service in a strange language, they plainly take away all 
mutual converse of God with the people, and the people with God, 
and interrupt the intercourse and communion of the Deity with 
man. 

[* Tliad, vr. 234—236. ] 


[WHITAKER.] di 


706 TO THE CHRISTIAN READER. 


The third is, their determining that the authority of scripture 
depends upon the voice and testimony of the church, and their 
teaching that the scripture is no scripture to us except on account 
of the sentence of the church; which is just the same as Tertullian 
formerly so wittily charged upon the heathen, Apol. c. 5: “ With 
you divinity depends on human choice. God is no God, unless it 
so pleases man. Man must now be kind to God!.” It is abso- 
lutely thus that the papists maintain, that the scriptures would be 
no scriptures to us, if the church did not give them their authority, 
and approve them by her judgment. 

The fourth is, their complaining of the incredible obscurity 
of the scriptures, not for the purpose of rousing men to diligence in 
studying and perusing them, but to bring the scriptures into hatred 
and subject them to wicked suspicions: as if God had published 
his scriptures as Aristotle did his books of Physics, for no one to 
understand. “ Know that they are published, and yet not pub- 
lished; for they are only intelligible to those who have heard 
myself ?." 

The fifth is their refusal to have controversies decided by 
scripture, or to allow scripture to be its own interpreter, making 
the pope of Rome the sole judge of controversies and interpreter 
of scripture: as if scripture were of no force without the pope, 
could hold no sense but what it received from the pope, nor even 
speak but what the pope saw good; or as if God did not speak to 
us, but only by the pope as his interpreter. 

The sixth is, their asserting the doctrine of scripture, which is 
most full and absolutely perfect, to be incomplete; and therefore 
not only joining innumerable unwritten traditions, whereof there 
was no mention in the bible, with scripture, but even setting them 
on a level with scripture in dignity, utility, authority, credit, and 
necessity: wherein they fall under the weight of just so many 
anathemas from Christ as the traditions are which they add to 
scripture. Who can adequately conceive the greatness of this 
insult, that these rotten popish traditions, whereof there is not one 
syllable in scripture, should be counted equal to the scriptures ? 


[1 Apud vos de humano arbitratu divinitas pensitatur. Nisi homini Deus 
placuerit, Deus non erit: homo jam Deo propitius esse debebit.—T. r. p. 62. 
Lips. 1839.] 

[2 (o0... . . adrovs kai ékOeOopévovs kai pr exdeSopevous: Évveroi yap eiat 
pdvots Tois nv dkovcacuw.——Aristot. ad Alex. ap. Aul. Gell. Noct. Attic. 
I xeo5] 


TO THE CHRISTIAN READER. 707 


These monstrous errors of the papists, courteous reader, we 
refute in this book, not only by arguments and testimonies drawn 
from scripture, but also by those other proofs in which our adver- 
saries principally confide; nor do we produce merely the ancient 
fathers of the church as witnesses on our side, but also the school- 
men and classic authors of the papists, who though, as the apostle 
says, they “held the truth in unrighteousness,” yet left it not with- 
out witness. 


We publish this controversy by itself (though we mean not to 
follow the same course with the rest), and that for very great and 
satisfactory reasons. The style is that which was used in delivering 
them orally, scholastic and concise, suitable not for expansion 
(which was little suited to our design), but for argument. They are 
published as they were taken down by some of my constant and 
attentive auditors, and have been afterwards reviewed by myself. 


FAREWELL. 


45-9 


EN DE«xX. 





A. 

ADAMITES, 229. 

ZEtiological sense of scripture, 403. 

Albigenses, 31. 

Alfred, ordered the Psalms to be translated 
into Saxon, 222. 

Allegoric sense of scripture, 405. 

Alogi, 34. 

Ambrose, St, his opinion of the perspicuity 
of scripture, 398; his testimony to the 
authority of scripture, 357, 702; another, 
the friend of Origen, 124. 

Anabaptists, reject the Song of Solomon, 
32; said to ridicule the book of Job, 33; 
to deny the scripture, 298; refuted out 
of scripture, 506. 

Anagoge, 404. 

Andrew, gospel of, 108. 

Anicetus, his behaviour to Polycarp, 217. 

Anthropomorphites, whence their heresy 
sprang, 229; refuted by Theophilus of 
Alexandria, 596. 

Apocalypse, whether rejected by the Coun- 
cil of Laodicea, 54; interpreted by Justin 
and Irenzus, 391. 

Apocalypse, of Paul, why rejected by the 
church, 315; of Peter, 304. 

Apocryphal books, in what sense sometimes 
called canonical, 45, and scripture, 69; 
of the old Testament were rejected by 
the Jewish church, 52; never acknow- 
ledged as canonical scripture by the 
fathers or ecclesiastical writers, even 
after the Trullan Synod, 63, 66; of old 
Testament, allowed such by the papists, 
103; of new Testament, 108,109; of the 
first class, what they are, 305; of the 
second class, 312; why rejected by the 
fathers, 313. 

Augustine's judgment 

concerning them considered, 45; were 

not written by prophets, 49; forbidden 
to be read in churches by the Council of 

Laodicea, 54; rejected by Melito, Atha- 

nasius, Hilary, Nazianzene, Cyril of Je- 

rusalem, Epiphanius, Ruffinus, Jerome, 








Josephus, &c., 56-61; not 
Christ or his apostles, 51. 
Apollinaris, supposed by Valla to have 
forged the books which go under the 
name of Dionysius Areopagita, 576 ; his 
testimony to the perfection of scripture, 

688. 

A pollinarius, included Psalm cli. in his me- 
taphrase, 104. 

Apollonius, attributes the introduction of 
stated fasts to Montanus, 665. 

Apostles, did not write without a divine 
command, or on slight occasions, 527; 
to be considered under a twofold aspect, 
311; how succeeded by bishops, 417, 418. 

— canons of, see Canons ; and pro- 
phets, Eph. ii. 10, how the foundation of 
the church, 348, 349, 649, &c.; deter- 
mined nothing about fasting, 665. 

Aquarii, Cyprian's epistle against, 498, 602. 

Aquila, his version of the old Testament, 123. 

Arians, refuted by the fathers out of scrip- 
ture, 481, 534, 563, &c.; some rejected 
the Epistle to the Hebrews, 323. 

Aristotle, calls law the canon of the state, 
27; his opinion of the human under- 
standing, 277; obscurity of some of his 
writings, 706. 

Arnold of Chartres, 27. 

Asia Minor, the people of, commonly un- 
derstood Greek, 256. 

Athanasius, his testimony for traditions 
considered, 588; his testimony to the 
sufficiency of scripture, 680. 

Athelstane, ordered the Bible to be trans- 
lated into the British language, 222. 

Augustine, has refuted the Manichees most 
copiously of all ancient writers, 31 ; bore 
apart in the third Council of Carthage, 39 ; 
did not consider all the books which he 
calls scriptures as of equal authority, 45; 
what he meant by the term canonical, 
46; believed the old Testament to be 
written by prophets, 50, 51; his opinion 
of Samuel's spectre, 91; concedes that 
Ecclesiasticus and the Maccabees are not 


cited by 





710 


in the Jewish canon, 93; does not treat 
the Decretal Epistles of the popes as holy 
scripture, 109; supposed Hebrew to have 
been the primitive language, 112, 113; 
his opinion of the Septuagint, 119; his 
opinion of the old Italic, 128 ; reads ipsa 
corruptly in Gen. iii. 15, 164; supposed 
John’s first epistle to be written to the 
Parthians, 218; does not say that the 
scriptures were read in only three lan- 
guages, 220; his opinion of the Punic 
language, 223; his testimony to the use 
and value of vernacular versions of scrip- 
ture, 245 ; recognises the necessity of an 
inward teacher, 290, 357 ; says that com- 
paratively few prophets left any writings, 
302; does not make the whole difference 
between canonical and apocryphal writ- 
ings depend on the judgment of the 
church, 309, 310, 315; meaning of his 
declaration, non crederem evangelio, nisi 
me catholice ecclesie commoveret auctori- 
tas, 319, &c. ; his reasons for the partial 
obscurity of scripture, 365, &c.; his tes- 
timony to the perspicuity of scripture, 
993, &c.; to what church he refers 
doubters, 442; did not believe that the 
rule of faith contains anything not de- 
livered in scripture, 487 ; his rules for 
interpreting scripture, 492-495 ; how far 
his decision about apostolical traditions 
may be admitted, 507; considers Christ 
as the author of the books of the new 
Testament, 527 : his reasons for rejecting 
spurious Acts and Gospels, 523; his ig- 
norance of the reasons of Christ's descent 
into hell, 537 ; his exposition of 2 Thess. 
ii. 5, misrepresented by Stapleton, 553 ; 
his testimony in favour of traditions con- 
sidered, 594, &c.; his testimony to the 
sufficiency of scripture, 694, &c. 
Augustinus Steuchus, 495. 

Authentic, what the word means, 332; the 
Vulgate so declared by the. Council of 
Trent, 111; in the fullest sense, no ver- 
sion can be, 138; protestants allow only 
the originals of scripture to be such, 140. 


B. 


Baptism, of infants, may be proved from 
scripture, 506; and so admitted by Bel- 
larmine, 540; heretical, not to be re- 
peated, ib. 507; Augustine’s opinion 
respecting, 608, 609. 





INDEX. 


Baruch, book of, its claims to canonicity 


considered, 67-70. 

Basil, his adventure with Demosthenes the 
cook, 233; his account of faith, 357 ; ad- 
vises a reference to the bishop of Rome, 
439 ; his rules for interpreting scripture, 
491; what he means by wapadoors, 493, 
498; did not deem the perpetual virgin- 
ity of Mary an article of faith, 502 ; his 
testimony in favour of traditions consi- 
dered, 588, 593; his testimony to the 
sufficiency of scripture, 681. 


Basil, the emperor, 438. 
Bellarmine, his character, 5,6; has deserted 


several old points of defence, 7; some- 
times misrepresents the opinions of pro- 
testants, 9, 514; and garbles quotations 
from the fathers, 374; contradicts him- 
self, 163, 540, 672, 673; borrows ar- 
guments from the old heretics, 614; 
pronounces all the histories of the old 
Testament unnecessary, 660; his strange 
interpretations of scripture, 668. 


C. 


Cajetan, cardinal, his judgment concerning 
the apocryphal books, 48, 66 ; vehemently 
censured forit by the popish writers, 49; 
deemed that only sacred scripture which 
the apostles wrote or approved, 53; what 
books of the new Testament he rejected, 
105; admits many faults in the Vulgate 
version, 169; admits that matrimony can- 
not be proved a sacrament from Eph. v. 
92, 197, nor extreme unction from James 
v. 15, 199; dislikes the use of Latin in 
the mass, 274; his remarks on Deut. xvii. 
12, 420; doubts the genuineness of the 
works of Dionysius the Areopagite, 576. 

Calvin, vindicated, in his objections to the 
Vulgate Psalter, against Bellarmine, 181, 
&c.; defended against Stapleton, 340, 
&c. 

Canon of scripture, the papists cannot 
assign the period when it was defined, 
63; was, according to Augustine, fixed in 
the apostles' times, and therefore cannot 
be altered or increased by the church in 
after ages, 310, 311; power of fixing, how 
incident to the apostolic office, 311; the 
fathers generally do not attribute the 
power of consigning it to the church, 
323, &c. 


INDEX. 


Canon, meaning of that term when applied 
to scripture, 27, 662. 

Canonical books, two kinds of, proto- 
canonical, and deutero-canonical, 48, 49 ; 
of old Testament written by prophets, 
49, 50, and approved by the ancient Jew- 
ish church, 52. 

Canons, of the apostles, a spurious piece, 
41 &c., 565-567. 

Castellio, 32. 

Cerdo and Marcion, received only the gos- 
pel of Luke, 34. 

Cerdonians, despised the old Testament, 
31. 

Chaldee, Paraphrasts, 117; language, un- 
known to Jerome, 81. 

Chemnitz, his objections to the Vulgate 
version of the old Testament defended 
against Bellarmine, 163, &c. 

Chrysostom, vindicates the canonicity of the 
Epistle to Philemon, 35; affirms that the 
original of the Septuagint was extant in 
his own day, 119; said to have translated 
the scriptures into Armenian, 222; ex- 
horted the laity to read the scriptures, 
239, 246, 247, &c.; testifies to the ex- 
istence of many vernacular versions of 
scripture in his times, 245; shews that 
scripture explains its own metaphors, 
379; his testimony to the perspicuity of 
scripture, 395, &c.; what he thought of 
Peter’s primacy, 440; his testimony to the 
sufficiency of scripture, 700. 

Church, a ministerial, not the principal 
mean of faith in the scriptures, 299; 
bound to receive those writings which 
are in themselves divine into the canon, 
and no others, 301, 305, &c.; subject to 
scripture, 352; and that, not only as the 
term denotes the whole body of the faith- 
ful, but the pastors also, 353; under what 
conditions always to be heard, 426; not 
older than the word, nor, if it were, of 
higher authority, 331, 332; what autho- 
rity in respect of scripture assigned to it, 
by us and by the papists, 280, &c.; the 
arguments of the papists for the church’s 
authority over scripture stated and re- 
futed, 285, &c.; authority of, can force 
men to acknowledge the scriptures, but 
not persuade them of their truth, 317; 
argument drawn from, not taken away 
by protestants, 318; Augustine's use of 
that argument considered, 319, &c.; the 














711 


faithful may be first moved by that argu- 

ment, but rest finally upon firmer ground, 

322; none of the fathers cited by Staple- 

ton really say that the reception of canon- 

ical, and rejection of apocryphal, writings 
depends only on the authority of the 
church, 323, &c. ; authority of, in respect 
of us, depends on scripture, not scripture 
on it, 332, &c. 338, &c.; not sufficient of 
itself to raise faith in scripture, without 
the internal infusion of the Spirit, 355; 
offices of, with respect to scripture, al- 
lowed by protestants, 283, 284; the 
judgment of, is human, 338, not divine 
but in a certain respect, 342; not the 
proper cause of the authentic authority 
which scripture holds with us, 334; what, 
we profess in the Creed to believe in, 299; 
built on the foundation of the prophets 
and apostles, what it proves, 348; in that 
passage, Eph. ii. 20, means both people 
and pastors, 349; present, the power of 
consigning the canon of scripture given 
to it by Stapleton, 330; cannot judge 

scripture but according to scripture, 353. 

what power of interpreting scrip- 

ture the papists claim for it, 410—415; 

resolves itself into the power of the pope, 

412—414; what Augustine advises us to 

consult in doubtful questions, 442. 

what the papists mean by that 
term, 448, 449; universal, not always the 
greatest number, or most considerable 
persons, 504. 

Clemens Alexandrinus, believed that the 
old Testament was restored by Ezra, 
115; that the old Testament was read by 
Plato, 118; ascribed the Greek of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews to Luke, 125; 
but the original to Paul, 106, 107; as- 
signs reasons for the partial obscurity of 
scripture, 365; thought that Christ de- 
scended into hades to preach the gospel 
there, 537; his testimony to traditions 
considered, 586; his errors, ib. 

Romanus, the book of canons 
ascribed to him, spurious, 41—44, 565, 
567; also that of Constitutions, 567— 
569. 

Constantine, 435, 436, 678. 

Councils, have a twofold use, 434; all re- 
ligions have guided themselves by scrip- 
ture, 434, 435. 

Council of Carthage, Third, was merely pro- 


712 


vincial, 39 ; not received, in all its decrees, 
by the papists themselves, 40, 41. 

Council, Trullan (Quinisext), rejected by 
many papists, 41; sanctioned the canons 
of the apostles, in contradiction to the 
decree of pope Gelasius, 41; counts too 
many canons, 42. 

of Florence, a mere modern popish 
conventicle, 40, 63, 67. 

———— Lyons, condemned the error of 
the Greeks denying the Spirit to proceed 
from the Son, 539. 

———— Nice, First, proceeded upon scrip- 
tural authority, 435 ; did not receive the 
book of Judith as canonical, 82. 

, Second, a mere conventicle, 

564 ; contradicts scripture, general coun- 

cils, and ancient doctors, 509. 

— Trent, not general 40; its 
decree concerning the canon of scripture, 
22; concerning the interpretation of 
scripture, 410; concerning the authen- 
ticity of the Vulgate, 110, 111; concern- 
ing prayers in Latin, 250; makes no 
classification of the traditions which it 
requires to be received with like devout 
affection as the scriptures, 502. 

Cross, sign of, an ancient ceremony, but 
much abused, 590. 

Custom, has not the same force in religion 
as in polities, 612; when opposed to 
truth, rejected by the canon law itself, 
613. 

Cyprian, exhorts men to fly heresy as the 
plague, 17; not the author of the tract 
De Baptismo Christi, 27; quotes the 
third book of Esdras, 68; in what man- 
ner, according to Driedo, 69; makes all 
bishops successors of the apostles, 418; 
his treatise de Simplicitate Prelatorum, 
ib.; how he quotes Deut. xviii. 12, 421; 
his remark on Christ's blaming the priests 
under the name of scribes and Pharisees, 
427; teaches that Christ only is to be 
heard, 429; does not mean the pope, 
but the bishop of each particular church, 
when he speaks of “one priest,” 441; 
how he uses the term tradition, 497; his 
epistle against the Aquarii, 498; con- 
firms the custom of mixing water with 
the wine from scripture, 499; his error 
about rebaptizing hereties, 611; how he 
cites Isaiah xxix. 13, 639; his testimony 
against traditions, 691,. &c.; for tradi- 


——— 














INDEX. 


tions considered, 601, &c.; for communi- 
cating infants, 666. 

Cyri of Jerusalem, 58, 596; wrote in 
Greek, 217. 

—— of Alexandria, 107, 399, 440, 492, 597, 
625, 630, 686, 687. 


D. 


Damascene, John, a late and superstitious 
writer, whom the papists themselves dare 
not defend in all things, 599; his testi- 
mony to the sufficiency of scripture, 703; 
ascribes the Epistle to the Hebrews to 
Paul, 107. 

Daniel, the apocryphal parts of, why some- 
times called scripture by the fathers, 76; 
are not canonical, 77-80; were written in 
Greek, 78; rejected by Origen, 79; re- 
ferred by Bellarmine to a second Daniel, 
79 ; book of, attacked by Porphyry, 33. 

Decretal Epistles, spurious, 435, 609; not 
called scripture by Augustine, 109. 

Deipara, that title vindicated by the Fa- 
thers from scripture, 538. 

Deposit, what spoken of 1 Tim. vi. 20, 555, 
556. 

Descent of Christ into hell, difference be- 
tween Bellarmine and Andradius on that 
point, 536; various opinions upon the 
reasons of it, 537, 538. 

Dionysius the Areopagite, the works of, 
spurious, 252, 575-580; his works de- 
fended by Goodman, bishop of Gloucester, 
580. 


E. 


Ebionites, used only the gospel of Matthew, 
35. 

Ecclesiastes, book of, vindicated, 31, 32. 

Ecclesiasticus, written in Greek, 90; He- 
brew original lost, ib.; author of, not 
inspired, 7b. ; his opinion of the ghost of 
Samuel doubtful, 91; may be rejected by 
the confession of Augustine and Thomas 
Aquinas, 93; offence taken at a passage 
in, 231. 

Epiphanius, his account of the Septuagint, 
117; thought the Seventy to be in some 
sort prophets, 119; his account of Aquila 
and Symmachus, 123 ; testifies to the per- 
spicuity of scripture, 399 ; delighted more 
than he ought in traditions and genealo- 
gies, 597 ; traditions mentioned by him 
rejected by the papists, 598 ; his errors, 


INDEX. 


ib. ; says that Christians in his time ate 
only bread and salt some days before 
Easter, 666 ; his testimony to the suffi- 
ciency of scripture, 686. 

Epistle to the Laodiceans, spurious, 108, 
302, 303, 304, 531. 

Epistles, Decretal, see Decretal Epistles. 

Erasmus, thinks that Matthew may have 
made a mistake, 37 ; Canus thinks that 
Cajetan was deceived by his novelties, 
49; admits that the vulgar bibles had 
many apocryphal books, 66; disowned 
by the papists, though called by Leo X. 
his dear son, ib. ; censures Faber for cre- 
dulity, 303; deems the Epistles of Pope 
Innocent spurious, 435; thinks the dark- 
ness at Christ's passion only partial, 579; 
thinks part of Basil, de Spiritu SS. inter- 
polated, 589 ; says that the use of chrism 
in baptism was introduced by the fathers, 
602. 

Esdras, apocryphal books of, generally re- 
jected by the papists, 103; fourth of, 
called canonical by Genebrard, and some 
others, 103, 104. 

Esther, apocryphal chapters of, considered, 
71, 76 ; rejected by Sixtus of Sienna, 75; 
how he evaded the Tridentine decree, 76 ; 
invented, according to Lyra, by Josephus, 
71; notreceived as canonical by Josephus, 
72; no evidence of a Hebrew original, 73, 
75; contradict scripture, 74, 75. 

Ezra, story of his restoring the law, 103, 
114, 115 ; said by Jerome to have changed 
the shape of the Hebrew letters, 116 ; his 
reading of the law to the people, 212, 
213. 


F. 


Faith, acquired and infused, 355; the same 
required in bishops and laymen, 670, 
671; analogy of, 465, 485, 486 ; resolu- 
tion of, according to Stapleton, into the 
judgment of the church, 341, 342; in 
Christ as Mediator, denied by Stapleton 
to be found in the old Testament, 612 ; 
first, 1 Tim. v., what it means, 482, 483. 

Faithful, Basil's definition of a faithful man, 
621. 

Florence, council of, see Council. 


G. 


Gelasius, pope, and his council, differ from 


the papists as to the number of the | 





718 


canonical books, 44 ; declares the book of 
apostolie canons apocryphal, 41. 

Gerson, says that scripture explains itself, 
494, 495. 

Gnosties, rejected the Psalms, 31. 

Greek, language, formerly the most prevail- 
ing, 217 ; known amongst the Parthians, 
218; version of the Septuagint, best and 
most ancient of the Greek translations, 
117, 118; extended to the whole old 
Testament, 119; authority of that ver- 
sion, ib. ; whether it be still extant, 121 ; 
faults of the present copies, 121, 122, &c. ; 
text of new Testament more ancient than 
the Latin, 142; inspired and archetypal 
scripture, 25.; from which Jerome amend- 
ed the Latin edition, ib. ; why written in 
Greek, 127, 217 ; versions of the old Tes- 
tament by Aquila, Symmachus, Theodo- 
tion, Lucian, &e., 123, 125. 

Gregory, Nazianzene, 30, 58, 241, 242, 371, 
440, 515, 595. 

Gregory the Great, 96, 97, 107, 129, 241, 
975, 400. 


EH; 

Hebrew, the most ancient of all tongues, 
112, 113; did not cease to be vernacular 
amongst the Jews in the time of Ezra, 
212; yet lost much of its pristine purity, 
213; scriptures understood by the people, 
213-215; text of the old Testament con- 
sidered authentic for 600 years after 
Christ, 159, &c.; popish arguments for 
its corruption, answered, 160-162 ; ori- 
ginal, of Matthew's gospel, 125-127. 

Hebrews, Epistle to, the author uncertain, 
106; generally ascribed to Paul, ib., 107 ; 
the question superfluous, why, 107, 108. 

Hegesippus, his testimony for traditions, 
574; a spurious work under his name, 575. 

Hermas, his Pastor, an apocryphal piece, 
109; might, aecording to Stapleton, be 
made canonical, ib., 330. 

Hilary, his alleged testimony for traditions, 
irrelevant, 603. 

Hugo, Cardinal, 65. 


I. 


Ignatius, what he meant by tradition, 570 ; 
what traditions Bellarmine supports by 
his authority, ib.; his Epistles doubtful, 
571; five of them certainly spurious, 572; 


714 


the papists reject his authority, 573; his 
errors, 573, 574. 

Interpretation of scripture, means of as- 
signed by protestants, Quest. v.c. 9; by 
papists, Quest. v. c. 3; by scripture, 
Quest. v. c. 13. 

Irenzus, 30, 31, 34, 35; cites the Shepherd 
of Hermas, 68; whether he cites the 
Epistle to the Hebrews as Paul's, 107; 
says that Matthew wrote his Gospel in 
Hebrew, 126 ; wrote his books in Greek, 
217; what he relates of Anicetus, ib.; 
what obscurities he admits in scripture, 
370, 371; Bellarmine misrepresents his 
meaning, 438, 439 ; thinks that scripture 
may be interpreted by itself, 491, 492; 
says that some barbarous nations retained 
the truth without the scriptures, 520; 
his testimony to traditions considered, 
583-585; his testimony to the sufficiency 
of scripture, 670-675. 

Itala, Vetus, the version so called, 128. 


J. 


Jerome, 18, 19, 20,83, 35; thought that the 
evangelists might sometimes make a mis- 
take, 97; uses canonical in a different 
sense from Augustine, 45; the judgments 
of councils and doctors subject to his 
correction, according to Cajetan, 48; re- 
jects the Apocrypha, 60, 77, 79, &e.; 
thinks Hebrew the mother of all lan- 
guages, 113, 114; says that Ezra changed 
the Hebrew letters, 116 ; thinks that he 
saw the Hebrew original of Matthew's 
Gospel, 126; made a copy of it, 127; 
complains of the variety of texts in the 
Latin versions, 128; not the author of 
the Vetus Itala, 128, 129; nor of the 
whole present Vulgate, 129, 130; cen- 
sures the readings of the present Vulgate 
132-135; it is preferred by the fathers 
to other Latin versions, but not to the 
originals, 197; Vulgate version of the 
Psalms not his, 180, &c.; says that the 
Septuagint varied widely from the He- 
brew, 183; whether he translated the 
Bible into Dalmatian, 221; says that the 
Psalms were chanted at Paula's funeral 
in Syriae, 222; thinks the Punic nearly 
the same as the Phoenician, 223; com- 
plains of the audacity of ignorant persons 
in expounding scripture, 233, 234; the 





INDEX. 


Commentary on Colossians not his, 239 ; 
his testimony to the free use of the scrip- 
tures, 244, 245; rejects the apocryphal 
pieces attributed to Peter, 304; what he 
says of the obscurity of scripture, 367 ; 
admits the necessity of divine help for 
the understanding of scripture, 368, and 
the use of a human teacher, 368-369, 373 ; 
does not say that Justin and Irenzus 
wrote commentaries on the Apocalypse, 
391; why he consulted the Bishop of 
Rome upon the use of the word hypo- 
stasis, 442, 443; differed from Augustine 
upon the meaning of the passage, 1 Tim. 
iii. 2, 455; says that the Roman Church 
rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, 505; 
corrects a mistake of Chrysostom's, 525; 
says there is but one genuine Epistle of 
Clement, 566; his testimony for tradi- 
tions, 605; his testimony to the suffici- 
ency of scripture, 692-694. 

Jesuits, description of that order, 3-5. 

Job, Book of, some Anabaptists said to 
reject it, 33 ; some of the Rabbins treat it 
as a fiction, ib. 

Judge of controversies, question concern- 
ing, Quest. v. c. 8. 

Judges, Book of, written by several pro- 
phets, 302. 

Judgment of individuals assisted by the 
Holy Spirit, not to be censured as mere 
private judgment, 460, 461. 

Judith, Book of, Jerome does not say posi- 
tively that the Council of Nice received 
it as canonical, 82; shewn by Jerome to 
be apocryphal on two grounds, 83; the 
times referred to in it hard to be fixed, 
83, &c.; cannot be referred to the time 
of Manasseh, 84, 85; what led Bellarmine 
to cast it in those times, 85; nor to those 
of Zedekiah, 86. 


L. 


Latin version, whether the present be Je- 
rome’s, 128; many things in it blamed by 
Jerome, 132; Bellarmine’s replies with 
respect to them considered, 134; the 
Scholastics have drawn many absurd con- 
clusions from it, 140, 141; sentiments of 
Clarius and Erasmus concerning, 207; 
arguments of the papists for its supe- 
riority to the Hebrew proposed and re- 
futed, 135-140; arguments of the Rhemish 


INDEX, 


translators, 141, &c.; arguments of Mel- 
chior Canus, 140; arguments of pro- 
testants against its authority, 160, &c.; 
places so corrupt that no papist has de- 
fended them, 173, &c.; of the new Tes- 
tament, corruptions in pointed out, 193, 
&c.; preferred to the Greek and Hebrew 
by the Rhemists, Lindanus, &c., 111; de- 
clared authentic by the Council of Trent, 
ib.; could not be made really authentic, 
157, &c.; barbarous, and full of sole- 
cisms, ib. ; in many places evidently cor- 
rupt, ib.; instances of corruption indi- 
cated, ib. ; of the Psalms, not Jerome's, 
180; made not from the Hebrew, but the 
Greek, ib.; worse than the Greek, ib.; 
our objections to it supported against 
Bellarmine's replies, 181, &c.; versions, 
formerly numerous, 128; versions, other 
besides Jerome's used in the church be- 
fore and after Gregory the Great, 129. 

Latin language, not now the most common, 
227. 

Language, one only spoken before the 
building of the tower of Babel, 112, 113 ; 
vulgar, the Council of Trent forbids the 


use of in saying mass, 250; arguments in 


defence of that decree refuted, 251, &c. 

Law, by that term, Ps. xix. 8, the whole 
doctrine delivered in the old Testament 
is described, 641; in what sense there 
said to be perfect, ib.; mysteries of, not 
concealed by Moses, 611. 

Lent, said by Bellarmine to be instituted by 
the apostles, not by Christ, 501; defended 
by Ambrose not from tradition, but scrip- 
ture, 604. 

Luther, no more erroneous in rejecting 
some canonical books than some catholic 
churches formerly, or some fathers, and 
even papists themselves, 105; distin- 
guishes between the obscurity of pas- 
sages and the obscurity of dogmas in 
scripture, 361; unjustly blamed by Sta- 
pleton, 362; distinguishes between the 
external and internal perspicuity and 
obscurity of scripture, 363. 


M. 


Maccabees, books of, arguments for their 
canonicity refuted, 93-96 ; rejected by Je- 
rome and Gregory the Great, &c. 96-97 ; 
contain doctrinal errors, 97 ; and fabulous 





715 


stories, 98; contradictory statements, 
98-100; whether written by Josephus, 96; 
second book of, an epitome of a larger 
work by Jason of Cyrene, 98; evidently 
written by a human spirit, 100-102. 
Manichees, rejected the whole old Testa- 
ment, 30; said that the books of the 
apostles and evangelists were full of false- 
hoods, 34. 
Marcion, rejected the law and the prophets, 
30, 31; a disciple of Cerdon, 34. 
Marcionites, what epistles they rejected, 35. 
Mary, the blessed Virgin, her perpetual 
virginity proved from scripture by the 
fathers, 502, 539; not an article of faith 
according to Basil, ib.; her rights to the 
title Qeordxos, 538; story of her assump- 
tion fabulous, 579, 580. 
Matrimony, not a sacrament, 197, 489, 490. 
Melchizedek, did not execute a priestly 
office in bringing forth bread and wine, 
167, 168; how a type of Christ, 168, 169. 
Moses, the earliest writer, 114; not a priest 
after the unction of Aaron, 417; some 
say that there were scriptures before his 
time, 114, 516; books of, in respect of the 
sum of their doctrine, nothing added to 
them by the apostles and prophets, 618, 
619. 


N. 


Nice, Councils of, see Councils. 

Nicholas, H. 298. 

Nicolaitans, rejected the book of Psalms, 
31. 


O. 


'Ouooóciov, vindicated from scripture by 
the fathers, 534, 535, &c.; whether the 
bishops at Rimini understood that term, 
139. 

Origen, his labour in collecting versions of 
scripture, 124, 125; what books he 
received as canonical, 57; whether he 
defended the history of Susanna, 78; re- 
jected the apocryphal parts of Daniel, 79 ; 
would have all search the scriptures, 247; 
admits obscurities in scripture, 371; his 
rules for interpreting scripture, 403, &c.; 
recommends the collation of parallel 
places, 493; thinks that the darkness at 
the crucifixion was not caused by an 
eclipse, 578; could not have been known 


716 


to Justin Martyr, 583; his testimony for 
tradition, 586, 587; a disciple of Clemens 
Alexandrinus, 586; his testimony against 
traditions, 675, 678, 700; probably author 
of some homilies ascribed to Cyril, 687. 

Osiander, his explanation of Micah v. 2, 
173; his calumnies against the Luthe- 
rans, 379, 380. 


‘A 


Paschal controversy between the East and 
West, 539. 

Pastors, why compared to the foundation 
and gate, 350. 

Paul, the apostle, rejected by the Ebionites 
as an apostate from the law, 35; did not 
go to Jerusalem, Gal. ii. 2, to confer with 
Peter alone, 432, 

People, the christian, should not be always 
like children, 243. 

Peter, the apostle, why thrice commanded 
to feed Christ's sheep, 428; had no com- 
mission given him thereby to determine 
what each one ought to teach and believe, 
429; said by Bellarmine to have been an 
ordinary pastor, while the other apostles 
were extraordinary, 417; Christ prayed 
for him personally that his faith should 
not fail, but not for his successors, 430, 
431. 

Philemon, epistle to, rejected by some, and 
why, 35; vindicated by Chrysostom, 35, 
36. 

Pope, not the one shepherd mentioned 
Eccles. xii. 13, 423; greater authority 
given to, than to a council, by the papists 
generally, 414, but not by Alphonsus a 
Castro, 415; why an incompetent judge 
of controversies, 464, &c.; judge in the 
last resort according to the papists, 445. 

Prayers, in an unknown tongue, do not 
edify the people, Quest. rr. c. 18. 

Ptolemeans, rejected the books of Moses, 
31. 

Purgatory, when, and how far, believed by 
Luther, 541. 


Q. 
Quartadecimans, their heresy, 539. 
R. 


Rites and ceremonies, unwritten, 513; may 
be changed as convenience requires, ib. 





INDEX. 


Rule, as such, perfect, 662 ; of faith, what 
according to Stapleton, 328; what it 
really is, Quest. v. c. 10; not unwrit- 
ten tradition, 484, 485. 

general, but one given for rites and 

ceremonies in scripture, 513. 





S. 


Sacraments, the meaning and nature of, 
should not be hidden from the people, 
252; the objection against divulging them 
from the Pseudo-Dionysius answered, 
253. 

Sadducees, said to have received only the 
five books of Moses, 30. 

Samuel, books of, written by others besides 
Samuel, 301, &c. 

Saturninus, 30. 

Schoolmen, held in what authority by the 
papists, 418. 

Schwenkfeldtians, 36. 

Scripture in the church what law is in the 
state, 27 ; God speaks therein as in his 
law, 445; how the voice of God, 296; 
indicates its authority by its style to in- 
dividuals as well as to the governors of 
the church, 287, &c. ; may be recognised 
as divine by all who are taught of God, 
290; the parts of, mutually support each 
other, 291, &c. ; its authority, how proved 
by Calvin, 293, &c. ; does not depend for 
authority on the church, 332, &c. ; how 
meanly the papists think of it, 275, 276 ; 
said by Bellarmine to be only a commoni- 
tory, not a rule, 657, 658, &c.; is the 
perfect, not a partial, rule of our faith, 
662, 663 ; words not found in, how far to 
be received, 588; is the same thing as 
the preaching of the apostles, 348 ; more 
ancient than the church, 351, 352; may 
be demonstrated « posteriori, 351; the 
church does not judge it, but according 
to it, 353; faith in, produced by the 
Holy Spirit, by the confession of the 
fathers, and the papists themselves, 355- 
358. 








perspicuity of, nothing defined 
concerning, by the Council of Trent, 359; 
general sentiments of the papists, 360 ; 
our sentiments concerning, generally 
misrepresented, 361 ; our real sentiments 
concerning, 364 ; why sometimes clouded 
with obscurity, 365, 366 ; supposed testi- 


INDEX. 


monies of the fathers against, considered, 
370-376; not contradicted by experience, 
379, &c.; proved from Deut. xxx. 11, 
381; from Psal. xix. 9, &c., 383; from 
Matt. v. 14, 384, 885; from 2 Pet. i. 19, 
386; from 2 Cor. iv. 3, 387 ; from the 
clearness of its principal points, 388; 
from the difference between the new and 
old Testaments, 389; from its argumen- 
tative use, 390; from its having been 
understood without commentaries, 391; 
by a disjunction of the classes of readers, 
392, 393; from the testimonies of the 
fathers, 393-401. 

Scripture, interpretation of, rule of the 
Council of Trent concerning, 402, 403 ; 
various senses noticed by the fathers, 403, 
&c.; has but one true sense, 405-410; 
interpretation of, Stapleton's cautions 
concerning, 411-415 ; to what they really 
amount, 415; rests with the Holy Spirit 
and scripture itself, ib.; rests not with 
the church authoritatively. Arguments of 
Bellarmine refuted, Quest. v. c. 4, 5, 6, 7; 
proved from the cause of faith, 448; from 
the properties of a legitimate judge, 448- 
451; from the inspiration of scripture, 
451, &c.; from the inefficiency of the 
fathers as a mean of certain exposition, 
455, 456; to be derived from scripture, 
and the Holy Spirit, proved from Acts 
xvii. 11, 457; from 1 Thess. v. 21, 457, 
458; from the absurdity of resolving 
faith into human judgment, 459; from 
the principle that the Lawgiver has su- 
preme authority to expound the law, ib. ; 
from the absurdity of making the church 
superior to scripture, 459, 460; the pope 
no sufficient interpreter, 460; from the 
testimony of the fathers, 461, &c. 

the Arians refuted out of, 481; 

is the source of the Creed, 485; is to be 

interpreted by scripture, proved at large, 

288-495. 





perfection of, how asserted by 
protestants, 513, 514; denied by Bellar- 
mine, 514; necessity of, how impugned 
by Bellarmine, 516-521; necessity of es- 
tablished against Bellarmine, 521-524; 
insufficient without tradition, according 
to Bellarmine, his arguments considered, 
524-542; perfection of, denied by the 
ancient heretics, 544, &c.; testimonies of 
fathers against, considered, 565-610; 








717 


proved from Deut. iv. 2, 615, &c.; from 

Rev. xx. 18, 621, &c.; from Gal. i. 8, 

623, &c.; from John xx. ult. 628, &c.; 

from 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17, 632, &c.; from 

the rejection of the Jewish traditions, 

637, &c.; from Psalm xix. 8, 640; from 

Luke i. 3, 4, 641; from Luke xvi. 29, 

642; from Luke xxiv. 25, 27, 643, 644; 

from John v. 39, 644; from Acts i. 1, 645; 

from Acts xvii. 2, 3, 645, 646; from Acts 

xviii. 24, xxiv. 14, xxvi 22, 646, 647; 
from Rom. i. 2, x. 17, 15, 4, 647, 648; 
from Eph. ii. 19, 20, 649; from 2 Pet. i. 
19, 650; from 1 John i. 4, 650; from the 
title of scripture, 651; from the uncer- 
tainty of tradition, 651-669; from the 
testimony of the fathers, 669-704. 

Scripture, did not perish in the Babylonian 
captivity, 103, 114, 115; should be read 
by the people, 212, 243; six heretical 
opinions concerning, held by the papists, 
705. 

Septuagint, see Greek version. 

Severians, their heresy, 31, 35. 

Simon Magus, 30. 

Solomon, books rejected by some, 31; Song 
of, vindicated, 31, 32; whether rejected 
by Castellio, ib. 

Wisdom of, apocryphal, &c., 86; 
written in Greek, 87; supposed to be 
written by Philo, 88; not written by 
Solomon, 89; rejected by the ancient 
Church, 89, 90; whether received by 
Melito, 56; most respected of all the 
apocryphal books, ib. 

Stapleton, contradicts himself, 352; mis- 
quotes the fathers, 314. 

Succession of the Roman Church, not entire 
and uninterrupted, 510. 





T. 


Tertullian quoted, 17, 27, 34, 303, 311, 324, 
485, 492, 499, 599, 600, 601, 665, 666, 
689, 690, 705. 

Testament, import of that title, 651. 

Testamentary, books of scripture, why 
called, 28. 

Theology, difference of from other sciences, 
364. 

Tobit, Book of, why called divine by Am- 
brose, 80; rejected by Jerome, 81; Je- 
rome had a Chaldee copy, ib. 

Tradition, ambiguity of that term, 497-499. 





718 


Traditions, unwritten, divine, apostolical, 
and ecclesiastical, how distinguished by 
Bellarmine, 500, 501; other divisions of, 
502; Bellarmine’s five rules for distin- 
guishing genuine, 503-511; the papists 
give no exact list of the dogmas depend- 
ing on, 511, &c.; not the sole rule before 
Moses, 517; not used more than scrip- 
ture by the ancient Jews, 518; the church 
not dependent on for many years after 
Christ, 519; some barbarous nations how 
far dependent on, 520; no necessary things 
left to oral tradition under the law, 529, 
&c.; not necessary to prove the authority 
or genuineness of the books of scripture, 
530, 531, &e. ; nor necessary to the inter- 
pretation of scripture, 534, 535; the pro- 
cession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, 
and original sin, not derived from oral tra- 
dition, 536; the descent of Christ into hell, 
how far dependent on, 536, 537 ; the sacra- 
ments, and virginity of Mary, not depen- 
dent on, 538, 5839; case of Easter, 539, 


540; baptism of infants, 540; purgatory, | 


541. 

Bellarmine’s argument for, from 
John xvi. 12,542; from the conclusion of 
John's gospel, 545, &c. ; from Actsi. &c., 
547; from 1 Cor. xi. 1, 548; from 2 
Thess. ii, 15, 551; from the Epistles to 
Timothy, 555-558; from 2 John, 12, 558; 
Canus’ arguments from 1 Cor. ii. 16, 558, 
559; from 1 Tim. vi. 3, and Gal. i. 9, 
559; texts for, urged by the Rhemists, 
560, 561 ; other texts, 561, 562; not the 
ground of Arius’ condemnation at the 
First Council of Nice, 562, 563 ; how far 
adopted by the Second Council of Nice, 
564; testimony of Clemens Romanus, 
563, &c.; of Ignatius, 569, &c.; of He- 





INDEX. 


gesippus, 574, &c.; of Dionysius, 575 ; 
of Polycarp, 580, 581. &c. 


Traditions, testimony of Justin Martyr, 582 ; 


of Irenzus, 583; of Clemens Alexan- 
drinus, 586; of Origen, ib. ; of Eusebius, 
587; of Athanasius, 588; of Basil, 588- 
594; of Nazianzene, 595; of Chrysostom, 
ib.; of Theophilus Alexandrinus, 596; 
of the two Cyrils, 596, 597; of Epi- 
phanius, 597 ; of John Damascene, 599 ; 
of Tertullian, ib. ; of Cyprian, 601; of 
Hilary, 603; of Ambrose, ib.; of Jerome, 
605; of Augustine, ib.; of Innocent and 
Leo, 609, 610. 

not universally rejected by here- 
ties, 610; case of the Jewish, considered, 
611, &c. ; Gentile, 612; hard to be pre- 
served, 651, 652, &c. ; their uncertainty 
the reason why the scriptures were writ- 
ten, 655; means for preserving them 
specified by Bellarmine, 656, 657 ; uncer- 
tain, 664-667; appealed to by heretics, 
667, 668. 


Ve 


Valentinians, 34. 
Versions, vernacular, of scripture,— three 


opinions concerning, amongst the papists, 
208; decree of the congregation of the 
Index, 209; opinion of protestants, 211; 
early, common in Africa, 217, 218 ; used 
by the Armenians, Russians, Ethiopians, 
Dalmatians, and Goths, 221; ancient 
British, 222, 223; not injurious to the 
people, 229, 230; should be corrected 
when obsolete, 232. 


U. 


Unction, extreme, cannot be proved from 


James v. 15, 199. 

















PRACT. 


PRICE 


























Whitaker, W. 
A disputation on Holy 


Scripture. 





BX 
2035 
P2 
WAS , 





7 
« 
, 


ff 
"T 
^ 
A at a a a: 


: P» 

QA itte em Nu AE 
^ "Dx M 
NOS T 


Gu 2» 

DONORUM 
WS 
AR 
25) 





oe 


c ES MS P yl 5 
AQUA 
sche 7 ER ae 





* ^h 
QUMNMRNNMNMMT 
MARINIS 
ANIM) e 2 
2 MX '* 


NQUS 
ANS 
RS 

















AE 


5o 











DU 
Pe 


Ca M an 
Pw wv 








SE oe 


4 atat 


5 


Ps 
af a uaa ut 


, "Ee 
LIL PLP ae 
^ 


^3 


a^ aS af 














eee 

















Vos et. 





6. 











oe 
Deo ee 

































































2 


PS 
* o v 
SON 
V ? 
QS 
e 


rer" 
ee 





























5 





o 
4 


5 


^ 





PLP ROPE Dr) 
C4 
ARM: EN 

















s 














» 
5» 














s 
^^. 


a died 


RARE 


DA Ln 


A 
BOCs 
» 























x 
SJ 
MN 











s A 
X 








«4. 


«KK 
































» 




















iS 
«4 S NN 


























4 
Pay) 
































SCR 

















SPUR 
SEEKS S 
424, 4 






































M MM 
NS 
Spee Per Ps Paha Pars 
GNARRARS 














«24 
MARS 
< AX 
424. 


^. 


P 
AUS. 
> 424 ^ 


«4 
DEM 
Py 



































EGS 








> 














4 
GG < 
Se SSeS RE 
¢ SESE SSS 
































4 

53S 4 

BEES EES 
Don 


2 
ORRR re! 


















































P^ 
BERS hid » 


Lj 


DIEA 4 
4444424 4414 
DUDDPPDDM 
PAPE i 


5259220 
P 
2» 


C e 


2525 
D$ 
ut 


DT 
Pad 
4 


4144144414. 
144144442 


a. 
AP 
4414€. 
DD 
DA 








M 
44i 
» 





IS 
5n aie D 
ais Sieg ea 
Don 
RA 


» 
HAM 


i 

un 

jk 
n 


23] 
«(4 
»» 25 » 
25525 


» 
PIDE " 
p 
9 


» 
2929293 
MR 
MS 
i44 


25 
P» D 
DPI 














Pe oe 
af Kh 
de RR A 


a A 
AN 
P 
























































» 


» Sate 



























































4 < 
< " 
d 

& 4 
Mint 
Muni 
29292 9999] 
the 
DE 


22» 
sc P n 4 
444 » 
MAII y 
duoi 
(444144 
DDR 
339590955 
PUUVPDIEDE 4 
DUET 
MAC heh aisha 55 
DEP LEE 
npe ; 
aie 


2 


i 
4 














pU 
i4 2444. 


ac 

















Pe) 
14446. 
SPP DDR D Da Da D EE 
P» $e DOORS 


< 
"A & 4444 
CEES 


» 
2 




















y 9 


wha chs ae dhe di e aie aie che 











POPE qq LS 
^ ut 
2 Ps 








5 





> 44, 
AS 
»») 








: 
$9 
5 


« 





v 
KOK 


eee 
SASS, 


Aaa 
^ 

















4, 





“7 
Se g qe qr oe ok ke 
"s ES 


4 
DM 
225) :,4 
te 


ES 
ww ^ 
“AKA oe ws 
I a 


^ 
AS 
^ 











cbe 
A. 




















24 
5 




















UN 
Ce woe 
A Kh oe 
BS 


448 < 
» ies 
€ 


























Wn 
DN 


ACA 











MONT 





PP 





* q 
p. 


DONI 
et S NS p uter 


- a atn 


eT $; i 


7 


eet 


XA ^ 


—— 


XX 


X 





sete 


utet 




















de KE M Re 


Pee Reng pT Dt 


FORA A 





p y 


LLLI 


ot a WIR OR. 


5 


Wd d 4 4d a 4 dads 


4272 Io Pr, ^ 
44. 


Fe 
"^ d. 


* 


a^ as 9 s s 


p 


4 4 4 4 A ^ e P we 


FP PtP) 9. dv P. 


d de d. a AS at atat €. 


» 


no 


ks 


4. 


Z 
a atto ES 


A 


9 :z 


P EU. 
Cu aat a ae d dedo Pm etd UA, n 


rox aes